Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 89

Archive 85

←

Archive 87

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

Archive 91

→

Archive 95

I'll bite

I'll bite. And I'll bite because I consider the individuals I mention to have been close friends. At this rate, every article ever written by myself, 02blythed, Dweller, and AA are going to be deleted. How many of you who appear to be so keen to do so, are as keen to build the project back up again? And how many of you now realize that actually it's the four of us who have done the bulk of the legwork?

There are dozens of Test and ODI cricketers with articles with equally as little content. And in some cases, zero citations or references. If people were so willing to fill these instead we would move forward as a project, not backward.

Someone pass me the stopwatch. Bobo. 17:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bobo. Thanks for the appreciation, likewise. I'm a tad annoyed that these individuals who have come along nominating articles left, right and centre for deletion have yet to make any positive contributions toward expanding cricket-related articles, or creating new ones. One of them claims to be a member of this project, but seems to edit solely golf articles, with their only link to cricket being the constant nominations/'delete' votes at AfD. There's so many cricket articles out there that need expanding upon and those should be our focus. StickyWicket (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean no offence as to your article creation, AA, in fact I was being complimentary about it, I'm sure you realize. As you say, if people had anything to add to the project, they would do so. Bobo. 18:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. WP:AGF. WP:NPA. WP:BATTLE. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

That's sweet. My question remains. There are threadbare Test cricketer articles all over the encyclopedia which should be formed into much bigger articles, whose main body text hasn't altered in 15 years. Where are the people who are willing to expand the project? Or is it really only the four of us who could ever be bothered? Bobo. 18:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Bobo, Sammyrice does fantastic work on New Zealand/Aus/South African cricket coverage too. But fundamentally, as you say, where are the people who are willing to expand the project? Sadly, over the years from the early days with YellowMonkey all the way to now, we've lost great editors and they've never been replaced. StickyWicket (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thankfully in those days we could get somewhere as a project. I'm still amazed at how many gaps there were in coverage of footy and cricket back in 2005 or so. If the protesters had been around then maybe we could have let them fix the situation themselves. Bobo. 21:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course, compared to other sports, cricket coverage is truly shoddy. Just look at how many redlinks there are in almost any team's players list. I'm confused as to how CRIN has changed to make itself more exclusionist in recent times, because I have no inclination to read through what is probably 100 pages' worth of text, but the fact that our own members are destroying the project shows that we are nothing but result of Frankenstein himself. If they had anything to add they would do so. I despise the way 02blythed was bullied off the project. Bobo. 21:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I am going to add my two cents and when I am not distracted but other means, I am trying to slowly expanded some of the Australian tour articles that was on the delete chopping block way back then. It will be slow for me but hopefully I can make some progress and maybe even expand some biographies along the way. HawkAussie (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Please don't change what I've written, Storm. ;) My comments are my own. Changing my comment without answering my question simply indicates you have no answer to my question. Changing the comment to make it sound like my comment has anything to do with CRIN is disingenuous as to the point I was making, anyway. What I said was, are the same people who wish to delete articles also willing to help build up the encyclopedia as well? Bobo. 10:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Still no answer as to why people who habitually send to AfD wouldn't rather expand already existing articles of more notable cricketers. It makes me wonder what people's motives are for contributing to the project. Choosing one at random that in any other case would be taken to AfD under current circumstance and article content: Neville Lindsay. Bobo. 19:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

HawkAussie would be great to see those articles expanded! Bobo, we have lost some very good editors, my biggest beef being how IgnorantArmies was treated for one breach of the rules, disregarding the good work he had done on early Australian cricketers and building a link between them and the early years of Aussie Rules. And Sarastro1 who turned out FA's at a tremendous rate of knots. I'm busy studying, so don't have the time I used to be able to spare, but might come back to finish my personal project on biographies for all FC cricketers killed in war. StickyWicket (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

On this, I can't help but wonder if it is due to America generally viewing cricket as a minor exotic curiosity rather than the legitimate world sport it is. The National Library for Australia trove archives have ample content to create well rounded articles for practically every First-class cricketer in Australia (and really most first-grade cricketers as well) up until the mid 1950's. The only challenge for subcontinent First-class sides is that the majority of coverage didn't make it to the internet and is unlikely to be in English. The presumption that coverage does not exist by those sending articles to deletion seems to be based on the presumption that cricket is a minor curiosity in the world as it is in America (I am not making any accusations about specific individuals though). I have not used it yet but New Zealand has a similar free archive to Trove for Australia here: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/ If the coverage is similar both Australia and New Zealand first-class pages can easily be bumped up at least to start-class with minimal effort. My only 'proper' articles are on Norman Walsh and David Pritchard and took quite a long time to go through, but have slapped together enough to demonstrate GNG for a lot more without too much grunt work. JagarTharnofTamriel (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

JagarTharnofTamriel any positive contributions are always well received. Pritchard and Walsh look great, they're exactly the sort of well researched additions we need. And I bet that if Walsh was a short-stub, that article would have also fallen foul of this mass AfD. The frustration arises from editors who haven't contributed at all in the past to expanding or creating articles, yet appear out of thin air doing mass AfD's, shouting the odds, ect. There's a way to conduct yourself and that's just not it, I contribute from time-to-time on the Military history project and I wouldn't dream of appearing there and trying to have changes in policy without having contributed to that project first. There are dozens of us who over the years have helped to build, biographically at least, one of the most comprehensive databases of cricketers and their lives, far more so can Cricinfo or CricketArchive will ever offer, especially for obscure ones. We should be focusing on that expansion. Thanks for your contributions :) StickyWicket (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on statbox

Added a statbox to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Walsh_(cricketer)#First-class_statistics Wondering what thoughts are on how it looks/if it fits wikipedia style? I feel like it could be a handy addition to pages primarily for Australian/English domestic stats (since Cricinfo does have statsguru for international players, and other countries have quite unclear First-class records over the years i.e. South Africa.) JagarTharnofTamriel (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@JagrTharnofTamriel: My only issue with this would be what happens if say the player plays for their county/state team and the national team during that same season. Do we combine the stats of both for one season or have them separate. HawkAussie (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd just have it for the domestic team and exclude the international stats, or have them as a separate section. I quite like it, provides a view of how their season-by-season career progressed. StickyWicket (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Likewise my preference would be to separate international stats from domestic stats with tables for both. Cricinfo archive does have domestic stats separately for domestic seasons (frustratingly stats for tour games for state/county sides are not included in this though and would need to be added manually). JagarTharnofTamriel (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I hesitate to ask

but is the Ultimate Kricket Challenge in anyway notable...? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: I doubt it to be honest. If A team tours are not considered notable then I really don’t think this is notable. If I were you I would send it to AFD. CreativeNorth (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @CreativeNorth:, it's definitely not notable for me. ☎️ Churot ^DancePop 08:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both. I've started the AfD. If anything, it should be nuked for spelling cricket with a "K"... :D Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

And nuked for being tacky as. That part of the world has given us some right abominations in the last few years, something the ECB seem to have caught too. StickyWicket (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't mention the H word! Or that three team/one game affair in South Africa... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm shocked there isn't a page on the 80s classic Silk Cut Challenge, which was a bit like the UKC, but was played on a proper cricket pitch with proper fielders. It also featured proper all-rounders, not just batsmen who rolled down some pies to each other. Spike 'em (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

AssociateAffiliate KP snacks who for some reason seem to sponsor every single team might disagree :). Now that I think about it the Middle East has brought us a lot of terrible competitions such as all the T10 leagues. CreativeNorth (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

CreativeNorth yes, what are one of the teams called, the London Hula Hoops :D There's T10 and that other T10 in Qatar, sure there was a 5-over a side thingy in Sharjah too. You'd like to think many of these big name players had enough money not to want to sell their souls to appear in these! StickyWicket (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I like this article titled "Why the T10 League is Detrimental to Cricket", esp. about the point of some middle-order players not actually batting or bowling in a game... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Good read that Lugnuts. I've never figured why t20 needs to supplanted by these gimmicky Mickey Mouse compeitions. If anyone wants to nominate me to run the ECB, please do, I'll 'scrap the tack'! StickyWicket (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the greatest thread of all time. SpongeRick Starpants (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Mitchell Johnson

Remember him? Haha, I jest, but for those who might be interested, please see this page move discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Retiring

Hi all. I've think I've run my course with this project. Of late I've become particularly annoyed with individuals who seem to be attempting to ride roughshod over a project to which they have not contributed and don't seem to want to engage with. These people will never positively contribute to the project once their purge is complete, so why should I? I genuinely feel for those of us who have put alot of effort into this, I don't think your contributions are at all valued. This is just something I have lost my passion about in the last few months and I hate to say it, but this project is dead. All the best, StickyWicket (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I sympathise very much with your viewpoint, and am barely contributing myself these days because of this. The purge will, of course, never be over because it's not being done in any rational or methodical way; it's just random vandalism masquerading as intellectual rigour. You (and I to a lesser extent) have the satisfaction of knowing that we contributed to an encyclopedia when being encyclopedic (i.e. comprehensive, as far as possible) was seen as a virtue. Johnlp (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It says a lot that those who are veterans of the project have given up because of the acts of those who have no interest in creating article content. Interesting that we live in a time where facts are being voluntarily censored. I can't possibly think of a parallel to that situation. You would have thought that those who are so willing to delete content were as willing to contribute content. Or to create it to their satisfaction. Bobo. 11:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that none of the people who we would wish to respond to this thread have done so. Maybe they can furnish us with their aims for this project and how they wish to achieve them. Bobo. 10:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that does seem little sus there. HawkAussie (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah as Associate said it is getting quite frustrating. I think that I myself have lost motivation mainly due to the same reasons as them. While Associate probably was of far more help to the project than I ever was, I hope my contributions were infact valued. Goodbye and good luck, CreativeNorth (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Facts = good. Censorship of facts = bad. Bobo. 17:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious, who's being censored? I've not really followed this whole thing, so seeing people retiring is a bit of a surprise and a shame. – PeeJay 19:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@PeeJay: In short there was a WP:NCRIC discussion which went nowhere and now people who haven't contributed to the project are trying to slowly delete the articles that ain't deemed notable enough. 04:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

HawkAussie, just check your signature where you've responded there. Bobo. 04:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

As I've said over and over, if deletionists had anything worthwhile to contribute to the project, they'd add to it rather than taking away from it. Which completely goes against the concept of deletionism in the first place, making their (non-existent) aims ultimately unattainable. The fact that they'd rather delete it says more about them and the way they want the project to head in, than it does the content creators. Deletionism for the sake of deletionism is just censorship under another name. As was demonstrated above, nobody who is so willing as to wish articles to be deleted is equally as willing to foster their creation themselves. In this sense, deletionists have no aim for any project that they are willing to help achieve themselves. Bobo. 04:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I've never seen a single person provide justification for why any part of a project is in any way unmanageable based on its size. There are hundreds of articles, some created by *Paul* as many as 15 years ago - which have seen no development in mainbody text since their creation. If this makes them in some way "unmanageable", then that's a very odd interpretation. These people could simply ask for articles to be looked at as and when they find them rather than declaring them unmanageable because they are unwilling to do the job themselves. Bobo. 05:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Of the 100 most recent articles started by Paul, at least 12 have seen few or zero prose text additions since they were created nearly 15 years ago. Where are you all who are complaining about threadbare articles? Frankly, if any of you had anything to add, you would do so. Wouldn't you? Bobo. 12:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

And a whole new bucket of AfDs on my talk page. Makes you wonder whether there are just some people who couldn't be bothered to do the work themselves. You would have thought that those who are so willing to delete content were as willing to contribute content. Wait, I already said that... Bobo. 16:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Still nothing. What are people hiding from? You would think if they thought so strongly about the issue they'd be willing to comment. Perhaps they realize deletionism is unjustifiable if they are unwilling to do add anything themselves. What do you believe you are adding to the project by continually wanting articles deleted? Bobo. 12:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Stat-table question

Dumb question, but I am wondering how statbox for AFL players (see here) has the font small? Not big like here. I feel shrinking the font down to AFL box size would allow for 100s/50s and 5wi/10wi to be added back into table without it bloating out too much. JagarTharnofTamriel (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The template that creates the header of the table has style="font-size:90%; in it. Spike 'em (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

More list of centuries at AfD, again...

Morning all. There's about a dozen of these lists that have been relisted at AfD. They start here and then go down the page for anyone who hasn't had an input yet. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

100 in 100th Test- notable list?

Was thinking about creating a new article for cricketers who have scored 100 in their 100 Test (Root today was the 9th). Given the current spate of deletionism, I thought best to ask here: do people think it's a notable enough list? Mentioned in detail [1], [2], [3], [4]. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I personally think that it is notable enough, but it will probably get deleted anyway so perhaps not worth the effort. extra999 (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Go for it : you have 4 sources discussing them as a group, so someone who shall remain nameless will have to find another bogus deletion reason. Spike 'em (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

List of cricketers who scored a century in their hundredth Test, feel free to expand. Spike 'em (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all, I will add the table format (to match other lists) later, will add more text first so that WP:NLIST cannot be applied by any rational person. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

There's also now an article for it on Hindi Wikipedia. Great job guys ;) Joseph2302 (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's worthy of a list. It's a trivial quirk. – PeeJay 20:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

He's part of the Fabulous 4, too... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Noel Miller

Rather obscure Australian cricketer has been usurped by a Canadian YouTuber. The Canadian may well be notable in his own right (I'm not of the demographic where I would presume to judge), so I'm loath to simply revert. Can someone who knows how to do these things sort it out, please? Johnlp (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted it, as they can't simply just usurp (we've had this problem before with TikTokers trying to usurp articles on cricketers of the same name). And have told them how to properly create an article about Youtuber. Probably worth some cricket fans watchlisting it, in case the disruption continues. It's doubly wrong as IP users are not allowed to create articles in article space, and they're trying to bypass that rule. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Johnlp (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The YouTuber is reasonably famous [5], mostly performing as Tiny Meat Gang with Cody Ko, and very likely the primary topic here. But as Joseph2302 says, hijacking an existing article is not the way to do it... they should create a separate article with a disambiguator and then put in a move request for the two articles. Richard3120 (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think we could reasonably object if our chap was no longer the primary focus. Johnlp (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Ahh, a classic article hijack. I reckon I personally see two or three per month on WP, not just for cricketers. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Merges

There is an ongoing purge of various cricket articles at WP:AFD, many of which are ending in a "merge" decision, e.g. List of international cricket centuries by Marvan Atapattu merged into the main Marvan Atapattu article. It appears that the "merge" of each of these is being achieved by simply deleting all the material in the list article and turning it into a redirect, effectively commuting the "merge" to a "delete". It looks like we need some more eyes on all these articles being "merged" as decent material is simply being expunged. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Good point. This project, when it was operating as a project, took the decision that lists of centuries made a mess of otherwise largely narrative articles, and decided therefore to separate the tabular material out from the biographies into standalone list articles, with suitable cross-refs. I don't recall any discussion here to reverse that decision: the courtesy surely would be for the deletion proposers to ask this project what they want to do with these lists, and perhaps to provide some precedent for their view that these lists are not needed. Is it perhaps the job of the AfD closer to ensure that "merge means merge" and that the information from these lists is retained within the article in which they are in theory being subsumed? Johnlp (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

If the consensus is merge, then content should be merged. Not doing so is inappropriate, as it is "supervoting" to change the merge to a redirect. Which is inappropriate and not in the spirit of a collaborative project. Merge means merge, merge does not mean redirect. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Who is responsible for seeing that the merge is done? Johnlp (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Anyone and everyone. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I left the note here, because the "merges" being "deleted" will doubtless be doing so under some kind of "no-one bothered fixing it so that's what happens" approach. People who are interested in preserving the data being summarily expunged are encouraged to actually merge it back into each main article (presumably so that we can then fork them back off again in due course, such is life...) The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Systemic bias

The next time I see the word "systematic bias", I'm going to scream. If you truly believe you know what you're talking about instead of parroting something you think you might have seen elsewhere, as you do GNG, at least say the right thing. I find it hard enough to take your opinions seriously as it is. Bobo. 15:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Where do we go from here?

No, seriously. Where? Would like to hear from all sides please. None of those of us who have been contributing for the best part of the last 15 years will want to continue, and those who are busy getting articles nominated for deletion won't be willing to foster creation of article content anytime soon. Sad to say, there is nowhere else for this project to go. We are finished. Would especially like to hear from those who are busy hacking down articles. They've been suspiciously quiet through this whole thing. Where do you want the project to go? Are you willing to do the work yourselves? Bobo. 11:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Störm:, @Rondolinda:, @Johnpacklambert:, @Ajf773:, @Blue Square Thing: Pinging you all here as you all have been quiet throughout this discussion. HawkAussie (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me. I've got nothing to add. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Is that to say you're satisfied with my frustration or annoyed with my insistence to express it? (Intended as a good-natured comment, by the way). Bobo. 16:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm currently only on the periphery of this, but I can see the boundaries shifting by just a few % would start deleting some FLs or FAs to which I've contributed. It always amazes me that there are some users who just spend their entire time at Wikipedia just seeking to destroy work. It's certainly having the effect of driving people away from Wikipedia as a whole. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact that anyone would rather destroy content rather than expand it themselves. proves they don't have any aims for the project. If they had anything to offer, they would do. Bobo. 16:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the tone of this discussion (and others) does not give the impression of a willingness to engage constructively in finding realistic solutions (rewriting NCRIC, accepting mergers/redirects, etc.) that will alleviate the flood of AFD nominations. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

That's why I asked for other people's opinions. *subtle wink* If people have nothing to offer in terms of enhancing content and are more interested in deleting it, then the project is dead. If the people who are more interested in deleting content have nothing to add, then the project is dead. We would be much appreciative if they had anything to add as well. Bobo. 18:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

About time

It's about time someone reported the rouge User:Störm and their minions to the administrators noticeboard for their continued disruption to this project and breach of procedures. 2A02:C7F:7C1D:E000:E839:E110:A19D:7F2D (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry mate. It's their project now. All other long-term members who cared about creation of articles rather than hacking them down, have given up. That should say enough in and of itself. Bobo. 19:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hundreds in all three formats

In the same way that the 100 in 100th Test was regarded as notable enough for a list, I wonder now that Mohammad Rizwan has become the 17th cricketer (16th male cricketer) to achieve the feat, whether we regard that as notable enough for a list? Annoyingly I can only find one source which as of today is out of date (may be updated later in the day/week) which may be the only issue that may stop it avoiding the cull, but I certainly think it's a notable achievement in itself.[6] Joalhe1997 (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Requesting more page watchers

Rumman Ahmed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been "hijacked" on multiple occasions over the years. Rather than asking for page protection, I'm asking for more page watchers so that future "hijacking" is fixed immediately.

A history of past hijacking is on the talk page. Right now it has "fewer than 30" people watching it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

---

It's worth a note that with the current surge and fascination with deleting articles, there are a lot of Bangladeshi cricketers' articles which could soon be under scrutiny. I remember Wser showing a massive interest in creating articles as early as 2006-07 before taking an inexplicable eternal Wikibreak out of the blue. Once again a massive kick in the face not just to Lugnuts and 02blythed but to others who were once working towards the same goal. Bobo. 20:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

RfD for Oxford cricketers

Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 8#Pranay Sanklecha would be appreciated, regarding redirects from five Oxford MCCU cricketers. --BDD (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

How many Denis Oswald?

As the article author went inactive, I'm asking here: Denis Oswald (codebreaker) has played some matches of first-class and minor counties cricket in 1931/32... that is, if the cricketer and the codebreaker are actually the same person! None of the sources give evidence for that. Anyone can help to clarify, please? --KnightMove (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I have found a first indication myself: ... Denis Oswald, a gentle, kindly man, England hockey trialist and very good cricketer. He was in the Intelligence Corps during the War... Only in 2017 was Denis’s wartime secret revealed that he had been at Bletchley Park as one of Alan Turing’s top codebreakers! Still, no direct connection to him playing those first-class matches. --KnightMove (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I see that that Uppingham Magazine article about him gives an email address for Stuart Moffat who researched their article, so it might be worth contacting him. Even if he can't help, it seems to me that the evidence is compelling enough to make it pretty much certain that they are the same guy. I found the cricketer's obituary in the 1999 Wisden.It's very brief, but says he is thought to be the only first-class cricketer born on the Falkland Islands. That ties in with his Wikipedia article, but I don't know whether his place of birth as given there comes from a cricketing source (in which case we are no further forward) or a codebreaking one (which would clinch it). JH (talk page) 15:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Only cricketing sources state his place of birth, unfortunately. However, the Old Boys Uppingham Facebook Account states that the cryptographer died 1998, aged 87 years. That makes two distinct persons with coincidental overlaps highly unlikely, almost beyond reasonable doubt.

Contacting Stuart Moffat is a good idea, thank you. But even then, it will take a long time until the merged info is published in a reliable source.

Could you please add the "only first-class cricketer born on the Falkland Islands" and the source in the article (or otherwise, tell me the page with the info)? --KnightMove (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It's on page 1487. JH (talk page) 14:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. --KnightMove (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

ICC Cricket World Cup or Cricket World Cup page moves

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

All, there is now a new 60 article RM discussion Talk:Cricket World Cup#Requested move 16 February 2021. Please feel free to discuss there. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution to the problem

Perhaps the solution to the current problem of deletionism is that deletionists don't just keep implying that article upkeep is a single person's job and if they were possibly able to assist the project, they would do instead of destroying it. Is it because you are incapable of doing so? Frankly, myself, AA, Lugnuts, 02blythed, and BlackJack have worked harder than any of you. If we were all busy creating articles, our goal(s) would be finished by now. Bobo. 16:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you saying that the people who are most active in getting articles deleted are managing to bring people to their side based on a faulty idea that there simply aren't enough of us in this WikiProject to maintain the articles going forward? I've not really been across the deletion discussions, but I find the whole thing ridiculous. We have notability criteria for cricketers whereby we assume that anyone who has played first-class or List A (including T20) cricket is inherently notable, do we not? I assume the actual argument put forward by deletionists is that most of the articles on minor 19th-century cricketers (and their ilk) don't satisfy WP:GNG as they have to rely on purely statistical sources, e.g. Cricinfo. Can someone please set me straight? What the fuck is going on? – PeeJay 17:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Please, we're both on the same side of this argument. I'm just saying that it's suspicious how those of us who have done the most work are the ones who are finding our work going under the microscope by will and nature of people who can't or won't be bothered to do the work themselves. If they were willing to collaborate in order that we reach our goal, we would be well finished by now. Bobo. 17:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

See what I mean? Bobo. 17:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I would not consider myself a deletionist, but as per WP:VOLUNTEER I have absolutely no desire to take part in creating microstubs for every player who has stepped onto a cricket pitch. Different people are interested in different things, even if they may be part of the same project. Spike 'em (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Then I suggest those who are less interested in expanding the project and more interested in deleting articles should work harder at the former, assuming they think they have something to add. Perhaps they simply know they don't. Spike, I know we haven't always seen eye-to-eye, but I thoroughly respect your dedication to the project. Bobo. 17:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

While creating micro-stubs sourced exclusively to statistical databases may have been (somewhat) acceptable 10+ years ago, those days are long since passed. The community as a whole (now) values content and quality (not article count), and insists that standalone articles are supported by significant coverage in reliable sources. It is clear that the goal of creating an article for every cricketer was/is a misguided one. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Then people should work harder. I would like to know what people truly consider to be the goal of the project when we have Test and ODI cricketers whose articles are no better than microstubs. Why are the people who find the work unacceptable, unwilling to help out themselves? Bobo. 17:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Forgive me. That comment wasn't aimed to you. It was aimed to the people who refuse to do so. Bobo. 17:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hijacking of National T20 Cup?

An IP wrote over the existing National T20 Cup article, citing a new league was introduced in 2019. The IP seems to be confused as to how many leagues operated 2004-2019, as these mostly seemed to be branding changes over the years. The IP is probably conflating leagues with tournaments as well. At best, a new structure and league would warrant a new article and a new article history chain. Either way, this seems to beWP:AHIJACK unless I'm missing something, and other editors are invited to weigh in. Dl2000 (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Articles shouldn't be hijacked. If they're 2 different competitions, then they should be 2 separate articles, but the old one should not be eradicated. Especially not by an IP, as IPs cannot create articles, and so often seem to use hijacking to bypass this. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted and warned the IP. If they are different competitions, article split would be appropriate. But I don't have enough subject knowledge. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

FYI, the same IP also performed similar recent revisionism at Balochistan cricket team, Sindh cricket team, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa cricket team, Pakistan Cup, {{Pakistan Cup}}, {{Pakistan Twenty20 League}}, etc. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Kings XI Punjab page move

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Add coaches to Template:Infobox cricketer?

Lots of sports infoboxes have parameters to add coaching years for team manager/head coaches, for example [:Template:Infobox football biography]]. Given that a number of former players are also head coaches of cricket teams (e.g. Darren Lehmann, lots of county coaches, most of The Hundred (cricket) coaches), would it make sense for Template:Infobox cricketer to be updated with coaching parameters? Joseph2302 (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why not. – PeeJay 15:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if there's anyone that knows enough about that template to add them? Joseph2302 (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Pakpassion as a source

Hi. I've seen this site come up a few times used as refs for cricketers, but I'm questioning it as a WP:RS. The discussion at WP:RSN can be found here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Some positive and a question?

Well to not make this a fully negative project. I have almost completed the 1993-94 Australian international cricket tours from South Africa and New Zealand plus the tri-series. The only things that is missing is the backgrounds for these series and I am trying to think of how to write that particular area of the tours. So was wondering what needed to be in that particular section? HawkAussie (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Some background on who they'd played recently, how successful they'd been recently, significant players making debuts or farewells, etc. This was presumably South Africa's first tour of Australia since its re-admission to Test cricket. Just a bit of context, really. Good to see someone expanding articles here. Johnlp (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Johnlp: Thanks for that advice there. HawkAussie (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Input sought on disputed capacity of Narendra Modi Stadium

It would be great to have some additional input on this: Talk:Narendra_Modi_Stadium#Capacity_(110,000_or_132,000)_? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

So, as we have established

As we have established from weeks and weeks of cricketers' AfD nominations receiving next to no attention and being infinitely relisted, this conversation continues to go nowhere and achieve nothing. Let's all celebrate in the knowledge that those of us who have bothered to put the legwork in over the last 15 years, were right all along. Putting cricketers' articles up for AfD has solved nothing and there is no incentive for the project to continue. Bobo. 11:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

First of all, can you please change the fucking record? I'm so sick of half the threads on here being you whinging about how cricket articles are getting deleted. I don't understand how it keeps happening either, but clearly we have a problem in this project. Are our notability criteria too loose? Is it proper to say that Cricketer A who played for John Smith's Amateurs in 1798 is notable for his one appearance despite only ever appearing in a statistical record and having made no other impact on the world at large? Because that surely can't satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Or are we arguing that because he made that one first-class appearance over two centuries ago, he's automatically notable and that people who stand by the GNG need to just suck it up? I feel like someone who's just started to watch Eastenders with no prior knowledge of the characters and storylines, so someone's going to have to ELI5 this to me. – PeeJay 16:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Not my point. The current cricket AfDs are having to be infiniitely relisted because literally nobody cares any more. There is so little article creation taking place these days and we know precisely why. This cannot be good for the project. Please. There was a time and a place we were all working towards the same goal, and we have all been driven away. What happened? Bobo. 10:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

If the articles are notable, they shouldn't be getting relisted and the person listing them should be punished for vexatious AfD-ing; if the articles aren't notable, they shouldn't be created in the first place. Not knowing what the actual threshold for notability is can be just as culpable for lack of creation as anything. I'm keen to work towards a goal, we just need to know precisely what that goal is and to what extent Wikipedia's policies will allow it. – PeeJay 10:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Until we've established that answer, there is no incentive to continue. Shrug. I can understand that times were different 11 years ago. But you've just established for me that we're working towards the same goal and we are being blocked from being able to do so, rendering the project stagnant. It's the fact that the project is stagnant that upsets me and others who have been working towards improving it. Bobo. 10:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This project has never been about article count; creating thousands of one/two sentence sub-stubs on players by mirroring from databases (that historically are very incomplete) is creating a directory, not an encyclopedia. The vast majority of articles that have been nominated (not just recently, but going back several years) are such articles – extremely low quality (one/two sentences with a database source only) – and almost all of them plainly aren't notable enough to have standalone articles. Make no mistake, there are rescuable articles (e.g. this) but they need work, not waving at an SNG that the community has no confidence in. No doubt some rescuable articles have been, and will continue to be, deleted but it is abundantly clear that without these AFD those articles would remain at an unacceptable standard – as they have for (in many cases) over ten years – so there is no real loss (other than to article count). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I worry that as time goes on there will be so few of these articles left that are expandable that we'll be left in the same situation we were in all that time ago - and as we are now, that the project will become completely "un-editable" in terms of prose content. While we still have completely threadbare Test and ODI cricketer articles. Bobo. 11:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

And here we go again... PeeJay, we're both on the same side of the argument, I promise. We have no idea what our aims and goals are as a project any more. Bobo. 13:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Our aims and goals should be to cover cricket in as comprehensive a manner as possible while respecting the guidelines of the encyclopaedia as a whole. Personally, I don't see any issue with creating articles on every international cricketer in history, but when it comes to people who only played a handful of domestic games, even at first-class level, the black-and-white nature of our notability criteria become a whole lot greyer. If all we can ever write about a subject is "He played one first-class match for Sussex but scored just five runs and did not contribute to any wickets", how notable really is that person? The same could apply to a player in any country, by the way, and it gets even more confusing when the scope of "first-class cricket" keeps changing over the years. The MCCU matches may be first-class status, but when the MCCU teams only play one first-class match a year and they are basically tantamount to pre-season friendlies for the County Championship teams, how notable is any player who only ever plays in those matches? A player who goes on to play in the County Championship, sure... but one who never plays professional cricket after leaving university? Not at all. – PeeJay 15:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Then for as long as we have "maybe, maybe not" rules, I can't take any of those rules seriously, and I cannot see what our true aim for the project is any more. These exceptions - those which I know exist but don't know in words what they are - if any need to be clearly noted. Bobo. 17:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Quite. We must be stricter with interpretation of the "highest international or domestic standard" and accept these is no automatic equivalence for First-Class or List A matches. University and minor counties in England & Wales are classic examples of matches involving them being accorded status but falling well below what anyone could reasonably describe as "the highest domestic standard" (university matches no longer enjoy FC status for precisely this reason, only politics and elitism meant they retained it for so long). Another good example would be Pakistan, where there there have commonly been multiple FC competitions each season (5 or more on occasion), often with a substantial difference in standard. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

And forgive me for saying this again, but whatever the inclusions and exclusions are on this bases in terms of brightline criteria should be clearly mentioned in the notability guidelines. As for "difference in standard", I had to stay awake and watch this morning! ;) Bobo. 17:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

For me, it's not even about differences in standard of cricket, it's about the coverage the different levels get. If we can write an actual biography of a subject rather than just listing all the games they played in and their statistical contributions, that tells me they're notable. Are you saying that's too strict a definition for you? – PeeJay 19:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Any amount of a "biography" will be either too much for some or too little to others. I don't like trying to search for facts within ten pages' worth of waffle. Bobo. 20:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

That's why we have style guidelines and a peer review process. Just because someone has put in the effort to write an article a certain way doesn't mean it couldn't be written better. We're the editors, after all. We're here to curate the content, and make sure it's both accurate and presentable for the readers. Since this isn't a paper encyclopaedia, I don't see why we can't include articles on every first-class cricketer for whom there's a source, but it seems like the consensus isn't in favour of that. That said, if people agree with me, I wish more of them would make themselves known and contribute to the AfDs that keep cropping up. That way we might eventually have fewer AfDs to deal with and actually be able to put together a decent cricket section to this encyclopaedia, instead of having to continually argue for the salvation of notable players' articles. – PeeJay 23:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

PeeJay, please know that in spite of my frustrations I'm happy there is someone else on the side of those of us who have been doing this work for all this time. I meant no harm and I'm sorry I ddin't express the crux of my issue properly at first. The fact is that people like myself, 02blythed, AA, Jack, Lugnuts, etc, etc, who were busy creating content, have been driven away and/or insane by all this. Every single one of us is saying what I said at the top of this. What's the point? We don't know the answer anymore. Bobo. 09:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The wider community consensus on this has been abundantly clear for many years, and reinforced countless times. It's about time it was accepted – persisting with fighting against that consensus for this long is incomprehensible, some would say disruptive. Time and effort would be (and would have been) better focused on finding alternatives to deletion, (e.g. lists) and implementing them. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Players who have played 100 test matches

Hello, I have created a page currently in my sandbox which lists all players who have played 100 test matches (Ishant also included). Please suggest improvements regarding it and if it can be published. Link is: [7] Ankurc.17 (talk) 08:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Couple of things: it's a list about 100 Test matches, so probably the date they reached 100 Test matches would be relevant. And listing their entire batting and bowling stats seems like an overkill. Also most lists of this type order by date achieved, but this one seems to be ranking by most Tests. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Will add the date they reached that landmark. Please suggest columns and/or stats to be removed. Ankurc.17 (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Please check now. Ankurc.17 (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I have a couple of observations. Firstly, the images are too big – 150px would be better. Secondly, as per Joseph2302 above, there are way too many statistics which distract from the purpose of the list – it should probably be limited to just the number of Tests played and relevant dates (i.e. remove all the batting/bowling/fielding). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep, far too many stats. I'd cut down to runs / wickets, and maybe at a stretch dismissals for keepers and maybe batting / bowling averages. I've replaced a bunch of dashes for you, but the alignment you've used doesn't work. Also, many of the cricinfo links are for the wrong player. Spike 'em (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Profile issues have been corrected. If there are any other changes please suggest. Ankurc.17 (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The remaining playing statistics need do go - they don't add anything to this list and without further context (e.g. role of the player: batsman/bowler/wicketkeeper/all-rounder), they are just largely meaningless numbers. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

What statistics? Its just number of matches played, run scored wickets taken and catches and stumpings made. Rest everything has been removed. Ankurc.17 (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Runs, wickets, catches, stumpings – all incidental to the list, largely meaningless without further context and available elsewhere. (Per WP:NOTSTATS) _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Added the primary role. Ankurc.17 (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Can I please publish the article now?? Ankurc.17 (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think any of the runs/wickets/catches/stumpings stats are needed, which removes the need for the "Primary role" column too. All we need to know is who the player is, who they played for, how long they played, when they reached the 100-Test mark, and how many Tests they ended up playing in. – PeeJay 11:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

That's why had kept only the basic info. Else the page becomes very basic. I shall remove those in the final draft and publish it., We can take it from there then. Ankurc.17 (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Your references are all still wrong. Joe Root's line is sourced to Justin Langer's profile for some reason, Sanath Jayasuriya goes to Shane Warne... – PeeJay 11:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that was some error when copying data for previous edit. That has been changed keeping your changes as well.

Page List of players who have played hundred tests is now active. Thank you all for valuable suggestions. Ankurc.17 (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You should have moved the page from your userspace to the mainspace, not just copy and paste. Now we need an admin to merge the histories of the two pages. – PeeJay 12:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Apologies but I didnt knew how to do that. Ankurc.17 (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You've been editing here for more than 7 years and you don't know how to move a page? – PeeJay 12:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I thought creating a new page would have been a better option. Is there a way to merge the two? Please suggest. Apologies again. Ankurc.17 (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Different note: the article needs a key to explain what the dagger means. Often it means player of the match, but I assume in this instance it means that they're a current player? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

And, it should probably be titled List of cricketers who have played in one hundred Test matches (or similar). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I've already moved it to List of cricketers who have played 100 Tests, but not averse to adding the "in" as you suggest. – PeeJay 12:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

My preference is for "one hundred" and "Test matches" to be written in full, but whatever is consistent with similar articles works for me. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I think MOS:NUM suggests we should write the number as "100", but I agree with "Test matches". – PeeJay 14:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Special:RelatedChanges

According to Special:RelatedChanges - link - no English cricketer articles have been created in the last 30 days. This contrasts with five South African cricketers, and 53 Indian cricketers. Is Special:RelatedChanges accurate? Bobo. 11:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

AfD nominations of cricketers

Störm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has nominated many articles about cricketers for deletion via AfD. I have reservations about the nominations, based chiefly on the rationale given when nominating. I would encourage members of this WP to participate in the discussions for these cricketers. In the meantime, I have asked Störm not to nominate any further cricketers for deletion until the current batch has run its course - At which point an assessment can be made as to the merits or otherwise of the nominations. Am going to watchlist this WP for a week so no need to ping me. Mjroots (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The same admin also deleted articles which were closed as "merge" without actually merging anything until they were asked to stop and do it properly. I'm not convinced the crusade is helpful or being conducted with sufficient care. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

They've also now started closing AFD discussions that they started. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a problem with WP:ADMINCOND and should be addressed formally. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: - who is the admin you are referring to? Mjroots (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Störm, unless you're going on a deletion spree and not merging articles properly?? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Störm is not an admin. Mjroots (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah well that explains the confusion. As you were. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: thanks for dropping a note on Storm's page. I raised this with them last month, with other editors (of this project) suggesting being bold (for redirecting) or bundling AfD noms. Thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Simple question: Why are we here? We are now at an impasse whereby those keen to create have now been hounded away just to satisfy those who are keen to delete facts. Why would anyone want to create any more content to enhance knowledge if that knowledge is being deleted? So we are "volunteers"? Sure. We've volunteered our time in creating these articles, and there they are. And this is where it has led. So, short articles are of "low quality"? Really? They contain all the information you would want to know, with no flowery language or blocks of meaningless text designed to flout NPOV. "Short" and "of low quality" are not the same thing. "Low quality" would be if the articles were full of outright mistruths. Call me an inclusionist for following subject-specific criteria if you wish, but how else does one approach a project? Those of us who have been working on the project for this long are being worryingly accommodating to those who wish to delete this work... "I've never heard of this individual" is not a valid deletion criterion. Most of those of us who have been willing to contribute new articles and enhance coverage, have been driven away by those who appear to have no desire to do so. Then again, you would assume, if they could, they would. Bobo. 00:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bobo192: we are here because I had concerns re the nominations. It seems we are on the same page re creating articles, although I generally aim to create articles at a level above start class. I know how much it hurts to have an artice one has created deleted at AfD and appreciate that the process can drive editors away. The articles I looked at seemed good enough to demonstrate notability and there were no referencing or BLP issues. I will be looking into this further today. Am minded to push for a ban for Störm nominating articles about cricketers for deletion. This will mean an ANI thread. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Sorry, I should have made my question clearer. When I said, "Why are we here", I meant, what are we trying to achieve as a project. Bobo. 11:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, right. That is a question for members of this WP, of which I am not one, although I have created a couple of articles which fall under this WP. Mjroots (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the universe is feeling particularly philosophical lately. Don't worry. :) Bobo. 12:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

200 ODI matches

In same vein as list of cricketers who have played 100 Test matches, I have created a page of cricketers who have played 200+ ODI matches. Please have a look. Ankurc.17 (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a wider question than this article, but should Pakistani players be sorted by their first or last names? i.e. should Waqar Younis be sorted as Waqar or Younis? Because for many players, they use their first names on shirts and on the scorecards. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The List of Pakistan ODI cricketers is sorted by first name, but I think that's more by accident than design! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I think lists of Pakistanis are usually sorted by first given name. Since Pakistani names are composed in a variety of ways, it seems like the most consistent method and least problematic. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Should not the article be named List of cricketers who have played most ODIs? Sort descendingly and stop at 200 matches. That's how the record goes, isn't it?--Chanaka L (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Possibly cancelled events

Does anyone know if the 2020 Everest Premier League happened? It has dates listed as 25 September – 9 October, but cannot see any evidence it happened. Their own website just shows results for 2018 (the 2019 tournament was moved to early 2020, and then postponed due to COVID), and ESPN only has fixtures for 2018 seasons. Also, does anyone know if the 2020 Ahmad Shah Abdali 4-day Tournament (Afghan first-class cricket tournament) happened? Cannot find anything for it either. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The 2020 EPL was postponed in March. This (unsourced) edit adds the September/October dates into the infobox. The ACB website is OK in updating about their domestic programmes, some I'm pretty sure it did not happen. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Those dates looks like the dates for the 2021 event: [8], [9], [10] Looks like the 2020 event was postponed to 2021, so should 2020 Everest Premier League be renamed to 2021 Everest Premier League? Joseph2302 (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Good spot - yes, it would make sense to move it. I'd be bold and do that rather than go to WP:RM, as it's uncontroversial. Happy to move it if you want, just ping me here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I have moved the page and commented out the squad lists for the didn't happen 2020 season. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

WTC appearances in Infobox cricket team?

The ICC states that the WTC is the 'pinnacle' event in Test Cricket, a Test Cricket equivalent to the WC or T20WC perhaps? So, would it make sense if WTC appearances/results are added to the infobox? Bingobro (Chat) 08:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

References

We already include all Test, ODI and T20I appearances in infobox, there is no need to split this further in my opinion. Also, Cricinfo and Cricket Archive don't have counts listed for every player in the WTC, so seems like original research to work it out. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

No. Would be undue and unnecessary bloat. Also unsurprising that the ICC are promoting/inflating it's importance. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

"Every Test match/series now has meaning" Apart from Pak-SA, BA-WI, WI-SL matches. And then the non-WTC matches, such as Afg-Zim, or this summer's Eng-NZ matches. If only there was already a ranking system in place, where a team could get to the no.1 place...! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Pakistan T20 cups RM

For anyone interested, I have started a multi-move RM discussion here. Input would be appreciated. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Grantham and Melton Cricket Association and Rutland and District Cricket League

Hi all, these two could use some attention from a cricket source-finding expert. They're currently only sourced to primary sources. Does anyone have access to any offline sources that cover these leagues? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Hey, I'm not super familiar with naming conventions for cricketers, but I was patrolling [[11]], and there seems to be a lot of page moves by User:Störm to the pages of various cricketers. The new page titles are suspect to say the least, and not like others I have come across. May you confirm if these page moves are ill-advised and help revert if so?--Ortizesp (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Störm doing something controversial when it comes to cricket articles? I don't believe you! I won't have it! /s – PeeJay 15:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems like Störm has been changing disambiguations from (cricketer, year of birth) to (team they played for cricketer). Although there doesn't seem to be a whole deal of consistency for which of those disambiguators we use in this project. And for Pakistani cricketers (which is most of the ones I can see Störm has moved), lots of similar players seem to use the (team they played for cricketer) disambiguation. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should be using the names of specific teams as disambiguators unless we have nothing else to go on. Occupation is obviously the primary dab, followed by date of birth, then nationality if it's unambiguous. – PeeJay 16:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

See my comment below – disambiguation should be as useful as possible. We should generally only use dates of birth when we are running out of other options. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I have renamed bios where the cricketer played for a single team as it is better practice (when a reader comes to search the bio of that cricketer he doesn't know his birth year but the team he played for so it will be easy for them to identify). Secondly, I haven't renamed any cricketer where they have played for multiple teams. Thanks. Störm (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

How do you know what info a reader knows when they click into those articles? Disambiguation by club seems like bad practice, even if it's the only club the player has played for. – PeeJay 17:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguating by only known (or even best known) team more closely follows WP:NCPDAB. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

But then you run into issues where some players may have multiple teams whom they're best known for playing for, which means you need to make a value judgement about something when we could just go for a fact-based disambiguator, i.e. birth date. – PeeJay 18:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Assuming Störm is accurate in their assertion, the articles under discussion here relate to players with a single known team. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

No, several of them have been for current players, but disambig'd to a team they no longer play for (or even no longer exists). In my experience, cricketers from Asia are more likely to play for multiple teams, than cricketers from Eng/Aus/NZ, for example. So having John Smith (Kent cricketer) would be the norm, but Mohammad Khan (cricketer, born 1920) would be the standard for a cricketer from Pakistan. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

For the record, the only Mohammad Khans to play first-class cricket are 39904 (unknown birthdate, played two first-class matches, each for a different team), and Mohammad Khan (cricketer) - 44546 for Quetta, an article which was... *cough* deleted... by request of *cough* its own author. Bobo. 02:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

One of the issues I can think of off the top of my head is something like where you have players who have played for any and all of [x], [x] Whites, [x] Greens... I'm sure there are other examples but I can't think off the top of my head - where there are teams with similar but different names and they are clearly different teams - often different teams under the same "placename" will play against each other in first-class matches. I'm sure there are examples from English-speaking countries. Bobo. 02:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

That's where I have an issue with it. Surely we should be using a consistent disambiguation protocol regardless of the player's origin? – PeeJay 20:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Surely usefulness for the reader is the priority? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

That's where player lists by team come in especially useful - because however these disambiguations would be handled, you can handle any of the other available disambiguations via redirects. Bobo. 02:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Then that is clearly an issue. While the more successful cricketers in that region have certainly played for a number of teams, those at the other end of the scale have only ever played for their regional association (in higher level cricket). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

When we discussed this before (probably about 10 years ago), and we moved from our previous policy of using birthdates as the primary disambiguator to a new policy of teams first, and birthdates only where necessary because of complexity, we were very much guided by helpful suggestions from User:BrownHairedGirl, who had relevant experience over lots of WP projects. I wonder if she might have a view now, because matters have certainly become more complex with more highly mobile players and more ad hoc teams. Johnlp (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there an established consensus for cricketers? I know there is for other sports at WP:NCSP.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The question of how useful it is for the reader is a moot point. For argument's sake, lets say there's two cricketers with the name Babar Azam. The first being the international cricketer, the other who only played F/C domestic cricket in the 1990s. The second one could be at Babar Azam (National Bank of Gas Pipelines and Research Laboratories Limited cricketer) (yes, not a real club...) or Babar Azam (cricketer, born 1970). The reader would simply type "Babar Azam" into the search box and either be taken to the first cricketer's article with a hatnote to the second, or to a disambig page. I don't believe the average reader is a) aware of our naming conventions or b) types the full disambig when searching for the article they are looking for. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Then there are players for which their birthdate is inaccessible or unknown, for which we are almost forced to use "X (Water Power and Development Authority cricketer)" (or whatever is right in the circumstance) Bobo. 08:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Except that when a reader starts typing in the search bar suitable options pop-up to facilitate not having to navigate through disambiguation pages or hatnotes of other articles, so using most likely known detail for disambiguation is useful; hence Roger Taylor (Queen drummer) and not Roger Taylor (drummer, born 1949) – the example given at WP:NCPDAB, which is the guideline we should be following. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I also think that team is clearer / more useful than DoB. IMO a casual reader is more likely to know the team a player played for than their DoB, so the search suggestions coming up with that information, as Wjemather points out, would be more helpful. Spike 'em (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it's situational- for two players who were born 20 years apart, it's easy to know which one is which using year of birth. But for people with similar years of birth, the club team is likely to be more well-known. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• FWIW not sure it's right to be disambiguating by playing position or birth place as in the recent batch. Also one was moved to a club when he had played for more than one team so could Storm be more careful to check the teams he's played for as the Wikipedia articles are not also up to date or may be missing information. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Anthony de Mello Trophy

I am afraid, I am a little suspicious of the veracity of the claim that Anthony de Mello Trophy instituted in 1951 the second ever England tour in India. I cannot find a RS mentioning the trophy dates prior to 2012 when Shermila Tagore petitioned BCCI to award Pataudi trophy in India as well. In fact, one of the references cited in the article reads,

"“In 2007, when MCC proposed the institution of Pataudi Trophy for England-India series, the BCCI had clarified that the trophy is already named after Anthony De Mello,” the statement further added."

How come MCC ignorant of such a prominent fact?--Chanaka L (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd not heard of this trophy until quite recently, but there is some proof that it has been existence since at least the 1980s - this photo shows David Gower holding it after England's 1984-85 series win [12]. However, it might not have been awarded just for India-England series - another photo shows Imran Khan being presented with the trophy after a Pakistan series win in India in 1987 [13]. --Bcp67 (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's Tony Greig collecting the trophy in 1977 (The Times). Interestingly, in 2012 The Times noted no mention of the trophy in various sources ([14]). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no mention of this trophy in the 1953 Wisden report on the 1951–52 series in India, but as the series was drawn, perhaps it was never presented. Johnlp (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC on using birthyear as a disambiguator

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Withdrawn. No consensus reached. Störm (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Hi everyone, hope you all are doing well. Following this discussion, I am of the opinion (in fact many) that we should move away from using birthyear as a disambiguator on cricket articles as they aren't helpful to readers. Just to clear up things, for example, if there are two websites named ImagesHub (one was founded in 2001 and is based in the United Kingdom, other was founded in 2009 and is based in India) then which naming convention is helpful to the reader: ( ImagesHub (website, founded 2001), ImagesHub (website, founded 2009) ) or ( ImagesHub (British website), ImagesHub (Indian website) ) clearly the latter one per WP:NCPDAB.

Team/club (if this is the only team/club they played for), role (such as wicket-keeper), or birthplace are some ways to disambiguate cricket biographies (we should also decide here which ones are helpful other than birth year). We can take help from Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(sportspeople)#Association_football_(soccer) and after discussion may add cricket conventions there too.

You may vote support if you agree that we should stop using the birth year as a default disambiguator (only use when it is impossible to disambiguate otherwise. WP has moved away from this but cricket articles are lingering on) or oppose if you have any specific reason so we can build a clear consensus. Thanks. Störm (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Like I said in above discussion, there's situations where team name is better, but for people with very different years of birth, disambiguating by year of birth is clearly easier for a user. Although nationality seems okay as dismabiguator if different, many of the players being discussed are the same nationality. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support using the most useful disambiguation per WP:NCPDAB. That can be geographical, team-based, role-based, etc. (examples would be country, club, county, state, province, district, wicketkeeper, batsman, bowler, cricket coach, etc.), but will almost never be year of birth, which should pretty much be a last resort, as it is generally of no use to the reader. Place of birth is probably even more useless. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose year of birth can be a good disambiguator as per Joseph2302's comments. I don't think we should be disambiguating by role (all players can be batsman or bowlers). If there's multiple cricketers that require dismbiguating I think it should go nationality, then club if they've only played for one club, then year of birth if still required. But as Joseph2302 points out a lot of those that have been discussed recently are of the same nationality and so year of birth is a necessary disambiguator. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• FWIW, in rugby union we disambuguate with (rugby union), then (rugby union, born xxxx), then (rugby union, born month xxxx), then (rugby union, born date month xxxx). Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support as per nom / Wjemather, year of birth is the least useful disambiguator to differentiate between players as I don't think casual readers searching for a player would know the year of birth over other relevant information (e.g. team / role). Spike 'em (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I'll also say that on a number of recent articles, disambiguating by nationality, team, and role haven't been possible due to multiple of the types. Therefore year of birth has been required. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  If no better options are available then YoB is still there; it just shouldn't be the default option – perhaps the RFC needs rephrasing to that effect, as it is not clear at present. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  That's exactly what I'm saying, in all of the ones Storm has moved recently (and I'm guessing the reason for starting this RfC) there hasn't been a suitable alternative. Take Mohammad Naeem (cricketer, born 1959) for example. Storm moved to Mohammad Naeem (wicket-keeper) however another of the Mohammad Naeem's has played wicket keeper. Of the 5 Mohammad Naeem's cricketer's all 5 are Pakistani, all but one have played for multiple teams (the other is already dismabiugated to Lahore cricketer), two are wicket-keepers, and two are bowlers, so year of birth is needed here. There are plenty that can be moved, but we shouldn't be getting rid of year of birth entirely. I also believe that disambiguating by town/village/location of birth isn't helpful as the reader is as unlikely to know that as year of birth. I'm pretty sure that it's already common place for nationality to be used as prime disambiguator following (cricketer), and then club/county if the've only played for one/have one main club on the project. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that "role" is not a useful disambiguator to use as far as cricket is concerned... it's not like football or rugby where people play in very specific positions. Apart from a wicketkeeper, everyone else is a batsman or a bowler, and even then, the lines are very blurry, as many players can and often do more than one job. Joe Root had the best bowling figures of any England player in the recent series against India, but nobody in the world, including Root himself, would classify him as a bowler. And a couple of years ago I think England played three wicketkeepers in Test matches, but obviously only one actually kept wicket, the other two were playing purely as batsmen. Richard3120 (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

As you adequately illustrate, despite performing multiple roles cricketers are normally recognised for only one of them (or as an all-rounder). As such, role can be useful. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Would the casual reader know what an 'all-rounder' is though. It's also highly ambiguous. Is Jofra Archer an all-rounder. Some will say he is, others will say he isn't. Batsman/bowler/all-rounder are too ambiguous for me, even wicket-keeper is becoming ambiguous as I've mentioned below. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not for Aftab Ahmed (cricketer, born 1931) and Aftab Ahmed (cricketer, born 1983), for example, who were both Pakistanis, both bowlers, and both off-spin bowlers. In this case, a club could be used to distinguish between them, but with the majority of cricket players either being "batsmen" or "bowlers" then I don't believe this is particularly useful to distinguish between them. Richard3120 (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

And Aftab Ahmed (cricketer, born 1931) has played for two different sides so you can't disambiguate by club/team for him. For Aftab Ahmed (cricketer, born 1983) you can though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

"Club" would be a better disambiguator than "year of birth", but with the rise of the IPL, Big Bash, the H*****d, etc. franchise game where players often get picked and play for a different team every year, this is likely to become less and less useful as a disambiguator in future. Richard3120 (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

100% agree with all of Richard3120's comments. James Vince (who most would say is a batsman) batted, bowled and kept wicket for Hampshire and England last year. Team is the preferred disambiguator after nationality for the cricket project I believe, and for retired players who only played for one side it can be a good disambiguator. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Richard3120 But, wicket-keeper is useful as a disambiguator in some cases where it is clear they were the only wicket-keeper. Störm (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I think club/team as a disambiguator will remain useful as we are in the process to clear the mess of stubs that we have created over the years (including my stubs). Störm (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should be using the disambiguator wicket-keeper at all really. Wicket-keepers are no longer specific roles really. The majority of the England test team's batsman were wicket-keepers at one time or another (Burns, Pope, Bairstow, Buttler + others) and certain teams are playing part-times to get extra bowlers/batsman in the team (Phil Salt at Sussex and Vince as mentioned above) so I don't even think it's a fully specialist position anymore. Also would a casual reader know what a wicket-keeper is? For example if there was John Smith (Essex cricketer), John Smith (Lancashire cricketer) and John Smith (wicket-keeper) would a casual reader with no knowledge of cricket know that the third John Smith was a cricketer and not something completely different? Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Some cricketers are (or were) unquestionably wicket-keepers. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that, Jack Russell for example, but is a reader with no/limited knowledge on cricket going to know what a wicket-keeper is. Using date of birth instead you'd at least know it was a cricketer as it would disambiguate as (cricketer, born xxxx). With just (wicket-keeper) you wouldn't know that. Obviously nationality then club/team should be used first if possible. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Most readers who would search for a cricketer are familiar with these basic cricket terms. If not, then they can read wicket-keeper linked in their bio. Störm (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes but when searching and just seeing (wicket-keeper) in the search box are they going to know. To find out what a wicket-keeper is you'd have to read the wicket-keeper article but if a casual reader didn't know that they could easily pass over that cricketer as they wouldn't know what it is. If it is used as a disambiguator, I think it should be after year of birth for players where date of birth isn't available if other disambiguators as mentioned above can't be used. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

WK would be useful more frequently than YoB. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I still feel that as (wicket-keeper) casual readers aren't going to know what it is when searching. Perhaps it would have to be (Pakistani cricket wicket-keeper) or (cricket wicket-keeper) or something like that, as otherwise I feel it's an ambiguous disambiguator. Not all people searching for cricketers will know about cricket. Some may just be searching a name. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose birth year is objective and perfectly apt. There's no argument. We don't need to spend hours deciding whether a player's position or club team or national team was most relevant when birth year almost invariably disambiguates perfectly. DAB pages are perfectly able to describe players in detail, that does not need to go into the article titles which would become a total free-for-all mess. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• NOTE Please don't move articles to (Dorset cricketer) or (Middlesex cricketer) if they've played for multiple sides. Just because one article lists them as a Dorset cricketer because they were playing for them at the time does not mean that it should be the common name for the article, especially if they have played more notable matches for another side. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The primary purpose of disambiguators is not to help the reader but the editor. They are a technical workaround to allow multiple topics with the same title to exist concurrently. From the point of view of the workflow of the editor, it is absolutely imperative that disambiguation is logical and consistent. This is needed to prevent the creation of duplicate articles and to ensure efficient wikilinking. As for the reader, we never make them guess disambiguators. Disambiguation pages and hatnotes ensure that they'll find the page they're looking for. All they need to know is the name of the topic. Now that does not mean that disambiguators can not be useful to readers. We don't, for instance, use obscure unique id numbers. But disambiguation by design should be minimal, logical, and consistent. Anything useful beyond that should go in the short description or the lead. Bottom line, disambiguators should not vary according to some wild WP:LOCALCON. The advice in WP:NCPDAB that is universally followed is to disambiguate by occupation first and year of birth second. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Players' dates of birth don't change over time, whereas clubs and indeed roles change over time (for example Steve Smith would originally have been listed as a legspinner, rather than as the world's best batsman); and roles can be unclear (is Jonny Bairstow a batsman or a wicketkeeper?) and there can be multiple clubs (is Jofra Archer an England player, a Rajasthan Royals player, a Sussex player...?) particularly for franchise T20 specialists. Place of birth is even worse- I have literally no idea where most of the England team were born as, unlike age, it is rarely listed in coverage and has no relevance to their career. This is at best change for change's sake. DevaCat1 (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per (talk) Disambiguation done by year of birth is easier for the usersSea Ane (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:NCRIC (survey)

Hi again. I want to survey and take a view of WP:CRIC members regarding WP:NCRIC status and are they willing to fix it?

My question is: was there any WP:RfC or community vetting of WP:NCRIC when this guideline was copied from WP:CRIN? What I find is that WP:CRICN's principal author was User:BlackJack (now blocked) and WP:NCRIC was copied verbatim from WP:CRIN without any vetting. Now, if anyone can find any vetting where they have proved that meeting WP:NCRIC will also mean that they will meet WP:GNG may share, please.

Now my solution to this, in order to make WP:NCRIC more compatible with WP:GNG and more usable, is that we should trim down a bit. My proposed points are under:

1. Separate the international and domestic points.
2. Add "multiple matches clause" in the guideline and that too only for first-class cricketers. Stop treating List A and Twenty20 as the highest domestic level (I know there are exceptions like IPL/BBL but players who have played only List A and Twenty20 matches should pass WP:GNG, simple).
3. Remove the umpire's point as it takes much more than few appearances as an umpire to be in coverage. They have to pass WP:GNG (only treat international umpires as default notable).
4. Remove 3 and 4 points of WP:NCRIC completely as it is very hard for them to pass WP:GNG.

If you agree then comment support and if disagree, comment oppose, but provide your reasoning how they will meet WP:GNG (any prove). This is my last effort to fix the WP:NCRIC and I hope it will help build clear consensus. Thanks. Störm (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment is this really your last effort? Like when you promised to not edit any cricket articles ever again? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

  At best, this is inappropriate, esp. when this theme has been raised elsewhere. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

  Actually, what's inappropriate is continually misleading the project. But your mileage may vary I guess. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose all changes This was all discussed at length here and there was no consensus on changes. I'm not entirely sure why you suddenly want to change everything. There's already one discussion on disambiguators going on so why are we starting another one at the same time? On the above points though. Points 2 and 4 were extensively covered on the RfC at the end of 2020 and there was no consensus and nobody could come to consensus on splitting it for international and domestic either, so why are we having this discussion. Just because the result you wanted didn't happen doesn't mean we should immediately start again to try and get the result you want. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose this was discussed extensively last year, as highlighted above. For someone who has going to never touch the cricket project again, the OP seems remarkably involved.... Joseph2302 (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. Let's be clear, there is overwhelming consensus that the guideline is broken and requires fixing. Failure to overhaul NCRIC here will likely result in changes being made directly at NSPORT sooner or later. It would be better if this project engaged and led that process instead of obstructing it. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

There was no consensus for changes in the wider NSPORT community, where more would likely want changes. The majority of Cricket project editors who partook in the discussion last year didn't want widespread changes, or couldn't come to agreement on what changes they would be. Why are we discussing this again literally 2/3 months later, there won't be enough for people to change their minds. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Usually there's a six-to-twelve month cooling off period before attempting to resurrect such discussions. Let's be clear, now is not the time to re-visit this while the OP themselves is focused on wiping out content. Perhaps if everyone could just down tools for a while and let the dust settle, the subject here wouldn't be so emotive and divisive. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

No consensus for the proposed changes (which were removal of the guideline from NSPORT, and a rehashing that didn't address any of the issues) is plainly not the same as having no consensus for any change. Changing the guideline should be viewed more with the aim of preventing creation of articles of the sort that are routinely being deleted (or redirected) at AFD, not as an attempt to wipe out content – which is the view some seem to take. Indeed, updating the guideline can be a means of stopping the constant flow at AFD. Constantly kicking the can down the road helps nobody. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Plenty of proposed changed to the guideline were discussed throughout the discussion, yet none of them gained enough support for them to be implemented as shown by the number of revised proposals in the discussion. At this moment in time there just is not enough support for changed to occur. This may be different in 6 months/a year but not 2/3 months later. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's be clear: re-hashing the same issue so soon will simply bring out the same arguments and same individuals, only they'll double down and make the situation even more intractable. In particular in light of what's being done to the project lately. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I prefer to think that the majority of people would engage constructively. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The majority of people engaged constructively 2/3 months ago, hence the length of that discussion where many different viewpoints and options for action were discussed, yet nothing could be agreed. Nothing has changed since then. We shouldn't be having this RfC on this. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

But nothing will have changed in such a short timespan. That's the whole point. Deary me. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Thank you to the user who asked me for my input. So let's be clear, there is absolutely no harm in redirecting players with under 5 FC/LA/T20 appearances to lists if no sources can be found. Just be BOLD and do it. For me, the issue began when cricketers were nominated who quite clearly exceeded those number of appearances (I remember one being nominated who had 33 appearances and captained Otago), or where sources existed and it showed that WP:BEFORE hadn't been carried out. This was apparent with a number of NZ-related nominations which really got my back up, like Arthur Bell (cricketer) or Joseph Borton to name but a few. CRIN has always been quite strict on who gets articles, some sports allow any person who has played for a club to have an article, whereas the status of matches makes our inclusion criteria quite narrow. Anyhow, this seems sensible:

• International cricketers: Test, ODI and T20I cricketers are automatically notable - including T20I players from associate nations, as an international sportsman is an international sportsman! International cricket also includes international cricket not afforded the aforementioned statuses, but instead first-class, List A, or T20 status (i.e. Intercontinental Cup, World Cricket League). The same for women's cricket too.

• Domestic cricket: players in domestic cricket are only notable if playing in any competition which holds FC/LA/T20 status in any of the 12 full member nations of the ICC. Players in events such as the Everest Premier League, or Global T20 Canada do not qualify for inclusion. Cricketers with over 10 appearances in total across any format(s) are automatically notable. Cricketers below this threshold are included on a case-by-case basis where appropriate sources can be found to indicate wider notability outside of cricket, for example Milo Talbot (British Army officer). If sources can't be found for one appearance John Smith, redirect him to a list. The same for women's domestic cricket too.

• Umpires: Umpires who have stood in an international cricket match are automatically notable (and you can assume have a lengthy domestic standing to have reached international level). Those who have not stood at international level, and are not former players qualifying them under the above domestic cricket section are done on a case-by-case basis also. For example, Ron Lay never played at first-class level, but did umpire in FC/LA cricket on 316 occasions between 1953–1968 – he is therefore notable in that respect.

• Teams: very much dependent on what coverage can be found, especially for historial teams. Personal elevens that appeared a handful of times should be redirects to the person they were named for (99% of the time those people are notable in their own right, irrespective of their CRIN notability). Any teams that are lacking sources should be redirected to a list of teams for that particular country, like List of historically significant English cricket teams.

• Stadia: grounds which have hosted men's/women's international cricket automatically notable. Grounds in domestic cricket included based on how many FC/LA/T20 matches have been held, again I'd argue over 10 makes those grounds likely notable in their own right. Below that, additional coverage required for sure, failing that, redirect to a list of grounds in said country, or of said team.

But overall, more care must be taken when nominating, it really has gotten people's backs up that articles are being nominated at a rate of knots which actually in many cases have coverage which if you know where to look, can be found. Also, it is important to remember that for cricketers in India/Pakistan/Sri Lanka, sources may exist in native language sources, which being a somewhat Anglo–centric project, we are unable to find or access. Simple and sensible, yes/no? StickyWicket (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I think it remains overly permissive in a couple of areas but overall it seems like a reasonable starting point, and certainly improves what we have now. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

From reading the above points, not sure there's really much difference from what currently exists really. Players who've played FC/List-A/T20 are notable if they've played it in a comp in the 12 member nations, if they've only played a view they can be reviewed on a case by case basis. That was my understanding of what was basically in place at the moment. As for teams and stadia I believe they should qualify for GNG over any cricket SNG really. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Raising the bar for meriting a standalone article from 1 domestic appearance to 10 is a substantial difference. The real significance of such a change is in assisting in preventing the of creation of further biographical articles without substantial sourcing. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It's also purely arbitrary. "Substantial sourcing" is not a requirement for Wikipedia articles. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with setting a set figure on matches though. Why not 3, why not 5, why not 7. Someone playing 2 FC matches in the County Championship in England is likely more notable than someone in Bangladesh playing 10+ FC matches. There has always been a precedent in all sports not to set a specific limit on number of matches, and common sense be applied. Many players from the early days of cricket may well have only played 2/3/4 games because that's all they had in that time. The current model of reviewing notability if they're no longer playing and have only played a few games and there is no coverage is fine. People should just be BOLD and redirect them as AA says, just to be careful that they have actually only played a few games and that there is no other coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll also say that players currently playing shouldn't be redirected also. They are likely to make further appearances which will likely lead to further notability and sourcing. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It is contradictory to view a threshold of "one match" as not "setting a set figure". Anyway, change here does not prevent creation of articles where significant coverage exists; it only seeks to prevent creation where such coverage is unlikely to exist. Countless AfDs have shown that coverage is far less likely to exist for those with under ten apps and NCRIC is not saving them from deletion/redirection. So why persist with facilitating/encouraging creation in these cases, when they are almost certain to be listed (and ultimately deleted/redirected) at AFD at some point down the line? And your last point is essentially predicting future notability and obviously violates WP:CRYSTAL. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't be setting a specific figure for notability for the number of games played for the reasons I've mentioned above them. It's highly subjective and has caused issues in other sports about picking the number of games for notability, hence it has tended to have been kept at 'has played' in sports such as football, American football, rugby etc. In fact looking at all sports specific guidelines all of them use one game as a guideline in sports that play matches or games. From the number of cricket stubs that have been created it seems like the majority of cricketers who've played FC/List-A/T20 cricket all have articles already/have previously had articles so not sure anymore would be created. I've not seen hundreds of cricket articles creating recently. On the final point, it was more that as players play more they will likely become more notability. If a player has played some FC/List-A/T20 matches and there is sourcing available, even if it's limited, they shouldn't be redirected. There's plenty of historic players to sort out first, and they should take priority. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

If those who were working so hard to delete articles were working equally as hard to contribute articles, we wouldn't need to be having this discussion in the first place. Is this admittance of being unwilling to do so? Incapable of doing so? Capable of doing so but unwillingness to be bothered? Whichever is the answer, I question what their beliefs are for the aims of the project, and why they are unwilling to assist in this area. Bobo. 00:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It is contradictory to view a threshold of "one match" as not "setting a set figure". nope, it's a binary decision. Yes or no. It's nothing to do with setting a "figure". What is this obsession with "coverage" all of a sudden? If an article demonstrates that the subject meets GNG then that's all it needs to do. We don't need "coverage" to allow an article to exist. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Let's be clear: "substantial" coverage or "substantial" sourcing are not requirements for an article on Wikipedia. Please stop trying to frame it as if they were. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose NCRIC is a very sensible standard, which is actually considerably more restrictive than most of the other sport notability guidelines such as WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NFOOTY. A single game in first-class cricket has long been thought to confer notability in the context of cricket; indeed, if you consider the obituaries in Wisden on an annual basis, it is clear that the editors of that august publication believe that there are many players who have not played first class cricket who are sufficiently notable to warrant an obit notice. I would oppose any attempt to increase the threshold to 10 matches, as proposed as a compromise above- I see no need to compromise with a group of editors who contribute little but rubble in their wake as they seek to destroy others' work. The most important thing is to increase the standard and depth of the articles on many players, which is shockingly low even for those who have played international cricket. There is very little citation to English language hardcopy sources, let alone to articles in Sinhalese, Urdu or Hindi; we should be seeking to improve quality by drawing on the vast array of writing on cricket from before about 2005, when the internet became ubiquitous. However, the current vast rash of AfDs deters anyone from starting a new article, or even improving older ones, as it may be deleted as part of the ongoing scorched earth campaign. DevaCat1 (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• FWIW, while setting a specific number of games in NCRIC is fraught with difficulties, I'm happy to use 10 games (in certain situations) as an 'unwritten rule' number for notability, sort of how those on the Football WikiProject use 5 professional matches and under for notability in their AfD discussions (one professional game is enough for football notability on their guide, same as in cricket). It's far from perfect, and there will be many where under 10 games may well be notable (certainly with players from earlier in the 20th century), but at least it's a start to getting to some common ground. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Also FWIW, two cricketers with totals of 15 and 11 top-rated (FC, List A or T20) appearances were redirected into list articles this afternoon. The threshold of 10 matches may be too ambitious in the current climate where the aim seems to be to dismantle the work of the past 15 or so years. Johnlp (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

It almost makes you think that the people who are more willing to destroy work than create it have no idea what they're doing... isn't it interesting how the people who are so keen to "move the goalposts" are those who would prefer to destroy work and have no interest in enhancing coverage? Maybe it is just them admitting they are unable to do so. In the past that would probably have been fair basis for an indef topic ban... Why would anyone create an article then CSD G7 it? Bobo. 22:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

If anyone is willing to recreate, the CA profile for Mohammad Khan lives here (CA 44546). Bobo. 22:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Or here, without the paywall. Note: it clearly should not be resurrected without evidence of WP:SIGCOV; see WP:POINT. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. If you are willing to enhance coverage of cricket on the project, feel free. "Resurrecting" an article has nothing to do with WP:POINT. CSD G7-ing an article, on the other hand... Bobo. 23:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

In this case it is highly unlikely significant coverage exists, so I'd say G7 saved a needless discussion at AFD. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 23:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

CSD-ing one's own article is disruptive. Bobo. 23:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

In any case, who would want to take any article which met subject-specific guidelines to AfD unless they were working against the project's aims? Bobo. 23:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

If it were disruptive, G7 would not exist as a criterion. Meeting any SNG (or GNG) is not a guarantee of suitability for a standalone article, and in this case the SNG is a particularly bad indicator near the baseline. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 00:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Wjemather, I note that here you claim that Wikipedia's community "has proven itself absolutely incapable of... producing coherent subject notability guidelines". That's precisely what we have done. Which one of us, considering many of us have been working for the last 17 years to enhance the project, doesn't find them "coherent"? Bobo. 23:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

It certainly isn't consistent with wider Wikipedia consensus on notability and the suitability of subjects for standalone articles, which is the biggest problem. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 00:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

"Consistent"? Or "coherent"? Which is your issue? Every team sporting SSG is exactly the same. Bobo. 00:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Consistency is a key facet of coherence. Every team sport SNG is not exactly the same, although many (not NCRIC) have similar principals – with logical limits based on the likely availability of significant coverage (e.g. since 1995, fully professional, specified competitions, etc.). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

What kind of consistency? Like, "Every first-class cricketer warrants an article" consistency? Or "let's delete articles at random" consistency? I repeat. Why do people so keen to delete articles not work at creating them? Have they nothing to offer? Are they simply admitting they are incapable of adding to the project? Bobo. 13:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

And to repeat myself, if what you wish to see is "coherent subject [specific] notability guidelines", why are you not willing to help us adhere to ours? Bobo. 13:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

"Every first-class cricketer warrants an article" is not consistent with NSPORT or N. It is also not logical due the many vagaries of what has been called first-class cricket at different times. 14:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

"Or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline". Seems pretty clear to me. How can that be hard to understand? Bobo. 14:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I repeat myself from above. Perhaps those who are standing in the way of our goals are simply admitting they are unable to help us achieve them. Bobo. 14:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Cherry-picking phrases out of context is not helpful. This is the latest in a series of attempts to create a cricket notability guideline that fits better with its parent guidelines, ultimately making it far less likely that articles meeting the guideline get deleted. Persisting with the current wording is not going to achieve anything other than inconsistency, as articles will continue to be deleted/redirected. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

By you. "Series of attempts" indeed. Bobo. 14:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

If you and those like you were as keen to help us achieve our goals as you were in helping destroy the project, we would be finished by now. That's the basic fact. Bobo. 14:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• In terms of the two articles that were redirected with over 10 appearances, redirect is becoming quite a common outcome for these sorts of discussions (where a player has played towards 10 matches, usually in Pakistan or another non-English speaking country, instead of 1 or 2 matches) which usually have a number of keep votes and then the usually delete votes from the common types such as Lambert. I think Storm isn't going to nominate any articles with 10 or more matches from now on though, but who knows. There still doesn't tend to be too much discussion on all of these articles despite the drop in numbers. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

There lies the psychology of, "This brightline criterion doesn't sit well with me, I'll recalibrate the brightline criterion to my own ways and means" from serial deletionists who are unhappy with brightline criteria. Which is even more deceptive. The way we're phrasing it now is, "I don't like the number one, I like the number ten". Which makes you think that the people who hold these views don't really know anything about the worldwide nature of the sport and the way it is played in other countries. Bobo. 17:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't like number 10 really, I think one FC, List-A, T20, Test, ODI or T20I should be enough to pass NCRIC, but far too many feel differently. I'd be happy to vote 'Keep, passes NCRIC' on every AfD, but without compromise most of these would just be deleted and not even redirected to list articles. NCRIC is certainly flawed with the way Wikipedia is now, but GNG is also flawed when it comes to sportspeople. Sportspeople are not like buildings which attract coverage in a simple way, they differ from sport to sport and country to country. When it comes to sportspeople and GNG, just going by GNG would mean we would probably have all cricketers from 2000s onwards in England, and maybe about 10 from 1850–1900. We'd probably only have about 25% of those that we have currently in non-English speaking nations. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, I was interpreting "ten" as "any number greater than one". Bobo. 17:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The very fact that people think "GNG" needs to exist as a way to flout N or NPOV at will is against the spirit of Wikipedia as a project in the first place. Bobo. 17:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a fair point, every sport on NSPORT has one game/match as their signifier for notability, why should cricket be any different. It shouldn't be the Cricket WikiProject's fault that cricket's governing body includes more matches as either FC, List A or T20 compared to other sports, or the fact that cricket statistics on matches are very well recorded compared to other sports. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

This has been (rather feebly) brought up by others elsewhere to criticize the guideline which was drawn up by BlackJack (at least) 17 years ago, and spiritually agreed upon by the community. I can't remember whether it was discussed in detail amongst people who would be willing to disagree with it. I can barely remember what I did this morning, let alone conversations I had 17 years ago. Bobo. 17:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

And of course, the brightline requirements have gradually incorporated the changes (statistically speaking) that the cricketing world has gone through in all the years since. Altering criteria to make us create a more comprehensive project is cool. Because that's why we're here. Aren't we? Bobo. 17:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a criticism of the guidelines though. Having more recorded statistical information should be a positive and not a negative. I wonder if they have similar problems with baseball articles, perhaps in Japanese players who only played 1 or a few matches in the Japanese league. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It's mostly caused by a misunderstanding of how cricket competitions are set up in other countries. Other countries have different leagues with different entry systems for different teams. Bobo. 17:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of "I've been bored enough to look this up", the 1974-75 Ranji Trophy tournament contained 56 matches and had 55 first-class debutantes. Bobo. 17:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Pakistan would be a better example of editors not understanding how different countries have structured their domestic cricket over the years. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Fascinating. Bobo. 18:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

That's another thing that annoys me slightly with these AfDs, why is one FC, List A or T20 match better than another. They have the same status even if one was a Varsity Match, and the other was Yorkshire Lancashire, or one was for one of the former Pakistan first-class sides etc. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Over to you, wjemather, you handle this one, none of the rest of us know. Bobo. 18:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Because of the level of coverage they generate; the competition (or stage of the competition) and/or the nature of both competing teams is more important than the status, which sometimes only guarantees the existence of a scorecard. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, woolly words like "level" and "coverage" don't wash with me. Because no two people will ever agree on what that "level" of "coverage" should be. Bobo. 18:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

None of that is in the NCRIC coverage though. That's more of a GNG issue and not an NCRIC issue. Playing in a competition that gets less coverage will not always mean that the player receives less coverage. NRCIC does talk about 'highest level' competition, but gives no clear confirmed information on what they are, instead just listing examples. With NCRIC as it is you could make a case for all FC, List A, T20 etc games being highest level in some way or another. It's certainly a part of NCRIC that could easily be improved by a list of competitions/matches that qualify such as used by football and rugby union and I'm guessing other sports. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

We have them listed somewhere. I forget where. Bobo. 18:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

There are examples listed but not a definitive list. Both football and rugby link that section to the list of competitions, if there is a list out there, it should be linked. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Official cricket one would guess this is the list, probably should be better linked to WP:NCRIC. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

That's the badger. Needs to be made more obvious. Bobo. 18:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Still with the way NCRIC is written, you can make a case for all University FC matches to be notable as senior individual matches. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has changed its status to: it's complicated. Anyone who understands the brightline notability criteria with regard to university matches is a better person than me! Bobo. 18:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Or "not coherent". ;) _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Wanna help out by making it easier to understand? Bobo. 18:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The same anomaly exists with county 2nd XI/club cricketers playing for minor counties & cricket boards in List A competitions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

For me if a MCCU match was recorded as FC (I know they're not anymore) anyone who played in it would be notable under NCRIC, as these uni matches would have been covered in some way by at least Wisden or Cricinfo (probably in an article with somebody moaning they shouldn't be FC). In terms of 2nd XI and Club matches, they've never had a status as such, but you could potentially make a case for some 2nd XI or minor counties matches gaining status as notable matches under NCRIC as there may well be some coverage for them in secondary sources. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate this is a minor point compared to the big picture, but if we could say this person isn't notable because the matches he played were in a notable competition, compared to this person isn't notable because it's my opinion that the games he played weren't notable enough, it would be an improvement. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

And with those three words you've hit the nail on the head. If we used basic logic and neutral criteria to put the project together rather than using our own "opinions" and deleting what offended us, we'd get somewhere. Hard for us to make that progress when there are people standing in our way of doing so without being willing to help out themselves. Bobo. 18:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

(Responding to an earlier point) Surely cricket has fewer matches than other sports, not more? The 2019 English season had 149 FC matches, the 2019-20 Australian season had only 38. Whereas an English football season sees 380 Premiership matches, 400+ in each of the three leagues below, then League Cup and FA Cup. Further, top level football is played in 100+ nations and top level cricket in fewer than two dozen.

That's where it becomes tricky because you have to take into account "whole-year seasons" and "year-straddling seasons". I'm only counting results I get from CA with team names beginning with E (because I can't search using a null string), but in the 2019-20 season there were 424 first-class matches over all competitions. It's only really England that uses whole-year seasons. Bobo. 19:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

(Responding to this point) Is this argument boiling down to the university matches? Bear in mind the universities were once stronger. Is a cricketer who played once for Derby v Northants in 1926 more notable than one who played once for Derby v Oxford in 1926 (or for Oxford v Derby)? Oxford were probably a stronger side in 1926 than Northants. How about someone who played for the unbeaten Cambridge team of 1878 when they beat the touring Australians by an innings? If you concede that, where do you then draw a line that is anything but arbitrary. If in my example I replace "1926" with "2006" is only the former now notable? The thing is, MCC or later the ECB have defined all these matches as first-class; a match between two counties counts as much to the average as one between a county and a university. Cutting someone out because he only played against (or for) Oxford/Cambridge is still arbitrary. FieldOfWheat (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. And damaging to the coherent collection of data we are accumulating. Taking a scatter gun and inconsistent, nay subjective, view on what does and does not constitute a first class cricket match (for example) is pure nonsense. The point above relating to the number of "available" first class matches one could have played is also really interesting. A footballer plays one minute of a match in the fourth tier of English football and has his article nailed in to the encyclopedia. Yet users of this project want to excise players who may have played for far longer in much rarer, higher level matches? Thoroughly depressing and counterproductive to Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

This is where AA and Lugnuts do such a good job. Check what matches are going on right now and immediately add names. And AA has been driven away by this whole issue. As was 02blythed - the way 02blythed was being treated was disgusting. Bobo. 19:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

For me this is the way it should be also, but because not many people are interested in Pakistani FC cricket compared to say a footballer playing for Gillingham, these articles have never been improved. Some football articles are being deleted if they've only had very short careers and there's no coverage, and I'm happy to use that for some cricketers, but there's 2 articles up for deletion atm who played for one of the 18 best sides in England, one in only the 2nd match in their history. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I ask what improvement is to be made - in any given example? If an article is fine as it is and there is no improvement to be made, so be it. If improvement can be made, so be it. If I just like it when articles state facts. Preferably without being underneath ten pages' worth of waffle. There are some articles which have received zero prose edits in the last 11 years - some of which have only just been noticed by the trigger-happy. Makes you wonder what these people have been doing all the rest of this time. Bobo. 20:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

There are also Test cricketer articles which haven't been touched in nearly 15 years... If the trigger-happy were so willing to help with them, that would benefit the project greatly. But it's easier to press the "delete" button, really. Bobo. 20:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

This is true, but I'd say it's more than likely that players who play for more popular teams and franchises are likely to have pages with more up to date statistics and information. Certainly those that are hosting the AfD's are deletionists and that's their view, and are using their deletionism to change NCRIC to something that better suits their views, and can use the recent GNG working with NSPORTS discussion to force their viewpoint. It's why I said that GNG isn't great for working out the notability of sportspeople earlier. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

No updating needed if the player hasn't played for a long time though - unless information comes in about death, etc - that's the beauty of being able to write articles which can remain static. Bobo. 20:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

"More popular teams" is a tricky one because that's very much a selective thing depending on where the team(s) are situated, and we're using a value judgment based on our own viewpoint. Bobo. 20:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying any policy or anything should be based on 'more popular teams', just that players who play for County Championship or IPL sides are more likely to be edited by other editors than someone playing in the Inter-Provincial Championship in Ireland or Quaid-e-Azam Trophy, just because there a likely more fans/people interested in those teams on English Wikipedia than the others. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh no - don't worry. But you are right, some teams will draw more interest than others. That's why it's interesting to look back in a competition and see who was involved at any given time. Bobo. 20:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Also in response to I think FieldOfWheat 's point on number of matches in cricket, I meant more in a percentage. In football and rugby for example only certain competitions are considered notable, whereas in cricket all FC, List A and T20 matches are basically considered notable no-matter the competition they were played in. The majority of articles created are of players who have played one of these 3 forms, with very few not having played one, whereas a rugby player who's played in the American Major League Rugby competition, with recorded statistics, wouldn't be considered notable unless he passed GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:NCRIC Origin

• Comment - My question still remains: was there any formal vetting by WP:CRIC that meeting WP:NCRIC will result in pass of WP:GNG when this was adopted as a bright/simple guidline? or, it was just adopted because 1 match was used by other sports guidlines? I hope someone will answer that AssociateAffiliate, Bobo192. Störm (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Those who worked to the original criteria were interested in building the project. Those who are stretching to flout CRIN guidelines for the sake of exclusionism are doing so to destroy the project. Those who have worked on the project for a decade or more just to have their work destroyed, no longer have the impetus to contribute. The idea is that any connection between CRIN and "GNG" (which went many, many years without needing to be stated and people were absolutely fine about) is in any way beneficial to the project is proof that those willing to state the latter are doing so for the sake of depletion of the project, with no will to contribute themselves. Is that helpful? That's not for those who have been working to build the project over the last 15+ years to decide. Because we've lost the impetus to contribute. Bobo. 23:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The long-term inclusion guidelines have been for one FC/LA/T20 appearance, I joined around 2010 and it was the case then and dates back to at least 2004 I think. Several discussions have taken place over the years, they're all visible in the archives. The biggest decision was the removal of dubious 18th century players and first-class players for whom we only had an initial and surname, or even just a surname. Those were redirected to lists. As Bobo rightly points out, this has never been a 'problem' until recently and community consensus has been agreed with regards to the notability guidelines several times. I'm open for obvious cases to be redirected to lists, but prior to doing so all avenues for expansion must be exhausted. Had the current rationales for deletion have been appointed to the many, many cricketers that I have created, but say for arguments sake I had not expanded, then many perfectly notable individuals would have been deleted. However, I'm an expansionist, and while these articles might exist, I still think they should not be the focus on attention. They do no harm and while a couple of people might view them a year, we should really be expanding cricketers who have tens of thousands of page visits. This should be the focus of this project going forward, and as Bobo also points out, the impetus has been lost – such is the task of expanding this project, it simply cannot be done by a few individuals. StickyWicket (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Worth noting that the only people who are interested in modifying the criteria for the sake of exclusionism, are exclusionists. None of them has worked anywhere near as hard to contribute content as myself, AA, and others who I have mentioned previously. Agenda much? Bobo. 23:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

AssociateAffiliate I still believe that focusing on quality rather than quantity will help the project. I agree with your proposal of ten first-class/List A/T20 matches as a benchmark (I have observed that publishers most likely publishes about a cricketer (profile, interview, etc.) who has played more than ten matches. This is true for AUS/NZ/ENG and maybe SA.) If we can agree on this then it will a great way forward. Störm (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It is impossible to define "quality" because there is no universal yardstick. My personal belief is that a "quality" project is one which would be, philosophically, "complete". Those who habitually request articles be deleted are, in the main, not interested in building a "quality" project, and are thus standing in the way of, what I personally believe to be, our - and their - goals. Note that the only people who agree that our goals are in some way misguided, are the ones who are standing in the way of us achieving them. Is this because they have nothing to contribute? Bobo. 01:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

So you would, for example, delete the article on Norman Callaway? After all he only played one FC match.FieldOfWheat (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Me? Not in any circumstance, whether the article is filled out or not. Therein lies the irony, my friend... Always interesting when they have more of a story to tell. Apparently. Bobo. 18:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Not you, sorry. Storm. FieldOfWheat (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Cheers. Forgive me. Bobo. 19:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

User:FieldOfWheat No, I won't. The article passes WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - It seems like there was no formal vetting by the Wikipedia community when WP:NCRIC was adopted (the very first time when WP:NCRIC was pasted on Wikipedia:Notability (sports), it looked like this). Also, see this interesting discussion. Störm (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

That was over 17 years ago. Things were different then... there was a lot of "low-hanging fruit", so to speak. I note how many Test cricketers I started myself back then because we were still filling these lists in. I can't speak much for the timespan of article creation on Wikipedia, but when I joined in summer 2004 there were around the lower end of 200K articles. Much of what we were creating then was so obviously notable that these issues never popped up. I note the number of very notable footballers for whom I did the same. Bobo. 22:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Noted that articles like Martin Martins were deleted (PROD-ed by AA, as it happens), because of confusion with guidelines, notwithstanding inclusion of U19 names, which existed for many other countries for a long time - relating to the status of the ICC Trophy. Bobo. 22:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Bobo192 These issues are old you've to admit that. See this discussion where User:Zunaid raised concerns regarding our brightline and warned about implications of adopting such guidelines (their prediction regarding stubs was bang on target). Störm (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Not as a result of those who were contributing to the project at the time... we were still contributing to the project in a way that still fostered article creation... Bobo. 00:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The bright guideline was first suggested (as it seems) by User:Jguk on 12 May 2005. Störm (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

To which we had zero problem adhering for nearly 14 years. Almost makes you think there was nothing wrong... Bobo. 01:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - On 12 September 2005, User:Moondyne added the guideline we are following on the project (no one knows who decided this guideline?). I failed to find any RfC kind discussion regarding that. Störm (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I would have thought it would have been an unwritten, logical rule from moment one - especially at a time when most of the cricketers' articles we were creating were of such obvious notability. The same was true of the football project at the time. There were so many names missing.that you would question how they could have been forgotten along the way. Bobo. 01:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

So User:Moondyne must be lying here when they say we have developed WP:NCRIC by having a lengthy discussion? Where is that lengthy discussion? Anyone, please link here if they know. Störm (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

That's not really what I'm referring to... I'm referring to the fact that in those days, we were probably following those rules anyway, even if they hadn't been "written down". That's like saying you shouldn't send a baby chick to school in case it pecks your classmates when you tell your teacher "it doesn't say anything about not bringing chicks to school". ;) Cricket articles were being written back then and before... In those days, RfC's weren't being written about things that were, at the time, so painfully easy to understand to those who were contributing and fostering article creation... we had so few cricket articles (comparatiively speaking) on what was still a very US-biased project. Sixteen years ago, this amount of lawyering really wasn't necessary. I don't remember real-life conversations I had with strangers sixteen years ago in the hope that one day one thing I said became useful... Bobo. 04:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You bring up a good point though - there are articles on cricketers in southern Asian language Wikipedias which have been deleted here (and I don't mean through the recent cull(s)), whether they have a centralized group of article creators, or how they organize themselves, I've no idea. And I wonder if there has been such discussion on the Simple English Wiki as to where to draw any logical line on article creation... Bobo. 05:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

T. Silva

Hi everyone. Anyone interested in deletion review of this cricketer may find the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 March 14. Thanks. Störm (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

FLRC

I have nominated List of international cricket centuries at Bellerive Oval for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Störm (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Years or seasons in infoboxes for Southern Hemisphere domestic teams

For Southern Hemisphere seasons which span two years, should they be represented in the infobox as (for example) 1993/94–2003/04 or 1993–2004?

For example, Ricky Ponting has:

• 1992/93–2012/13 Tasmania
• 2011/12–2012/13 Hobart Hurricanes

See also Allan Border, Jacques Kallis, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Laura Marsh and Brett Lee (used as an example infobox on Template:Infobox cricketer) who all have 1993/94–2003/04 etc in their infoboxes.

On the flip-side, Shane Warne has:

• 1990–2007 Victoria
• 2011–2013 Melbourne Stars

See also Michael Slater, Garfield Sobers, VVS Laxman, Kumar Sangakkara and Ellyse Perry who all have 1990–2007 etc in their infoboxes.

Personally I prefer using seasons because it makes it clearer how many seasons a player played. For example, 2015–2017 could be two or three seasons, but 2015/16–2016/17 makes it clear that it is two seasons.

But which style is generally preferred? 25mdvr (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I much prefer seasons, but there's a combination of the information is slightly harder to source properly and that people are lazy or don't think about things. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I slightly prefer seasons too, but it's difficult because many sources, particularly the non-stats sites use years e.g. they say "X played for team Y from 2010-2020." And so it's hard to know if 2010 means 2009/10, 2010, or 2010/2011 season. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I remember when I created templates on my sandbox, I was doing so - having been advised, I wouldn't be able to locate where - season-by-season. My theory is that an article would read "Appeared for [X] during the [YYYY-ZZ] season. Joseph2302, if it were me, I would get over the multiple season problem by saying, "Between the WWWW-XX and YYYY-ZZ season. (Please forgive the odd parameter indicators). Bobo. 12:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Once again, at the time I made team-by-team infoboxes in the style 1886–87   1887–88... etc etc... (used a non-cricket example to indicate). In those days, English cricket teams' season-by-season articles didn't exist. Bobo. 12:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

For example, Template:Mysore Cricket Club seasons would read thus:

(Too lazy to work out which seasons should and shouldn't be there). Bobo. 12:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Of course the list wouldn't just contain the first class match(es) but the season-by-season statistics as per football seasons' articles. Bobo. 13:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Rashid Gatrad, Malawi

I have unreliable sources saying that Abdul Rashid Gatrad (born mid 1940s) "represented Malawi in International games chosen mainly for his seam medium fast bowling" in the late 1970s. Can anyone provide a good source, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Malawi aren't a major cricketing nation, so I doubt there's any record of Gatrad playing for them, especially from 40+ years ago. There's no mention of him on CricketArchive. Oh hang on, I did manage to find this! StickyWicket (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a very useful resource, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Today's featured article

Just going to leave this here... Lewis (baseball). StickyWicket (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Also an FL for List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Nominate it for deletion. Let's see how that one goes down. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

You're trying to compare an article with many reliable (and indeed secondary) sources, which have significant coverage of the subject, with articles that only have scorecard data (and the occasional trivial passing mention). Ok. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yep. Problem? Bobo. 11:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

You do realize that if people who were so willing to put articles up for deletion were as willing to help us create articles, we would be done by now? What are people's motives for creating a perpetually incomplete project? Are we stuck in 1984? Maybe these people simply have nothing to add... Bobo. 12:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes we are stuck in the 1980s. We're constantly dragged backwards by people who think this project should fit on a 3.5" floppy disk, or on a CGA screen. It's utterly demoralising to see information being destroyed day after day after day. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why completeness (or the potential for completeness) isn't seen as WP's biggest virtue: what makes it so much better than all previous encyclopedias. There's a Hampshire cricketer up for deletion now. If he goes, we won't have a complete set of articles on every Hampshire cricketer. OK, we don't know much about him, but he's an integral part of a bigger set, and getting rid of him diminishes the value of the whole. Johnlp (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Because those who are so keen to stop it from happening aren't so keen in helping out... if they helped out as keenly as they tried to destroy the project, we would be done by now... Bobo. 12:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Especially considering he played in the county club's second first-class match, so must have been a significant figure in Hampshire cricket around that time. StickyWicket (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly right. If we had to pay to get it printed each time or add an extra floppy disk to cover it, I'd understand, but this deletionist mentality is actually harmful to the project as a whole. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Not even for my usual argument of lack of completion, but for the sheer fact that it is discouraging us from making further progress. While those we would hope would help us make that progress... won't. (Perhaps they're only doing it because they know they can't...) Bobo. 13:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Would be most amusing to nominate it!!! But in fairness, while there are many secondary sources in the artcle, a good third or more of it doesn't actually talk about him. StickyWicket (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Bit like Lamborn (Hambledon cricketer) then. Article needs some work and would need a lot more sourcing to bring it up to FA status, but given the sources that exist (and are freely available) it would certainly be possible to get it to GA status. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I think Lamborn could easily make GA status, especially given his early significance. Also worth noting Lewis (baseball) was once nominated for deletion. StickyWicket (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, and as one person voting in opposition said: "First Lewis, then players that played only one game, then people that played only one season, then non all-stars... fuck this nonsense." A future echo of the "nonsense" running rife at this project right now. How prescient. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI: yesterday's joke FA didn't go unnoticed nor did what's going on at this project. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Point one of Wikipedia:Five pillars "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." No doubt Team Deletion! will refute that. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Even if Wikipedia were, for all intents and purposes, complete, with co-operation from those who wish not to do so, there would still be people who would raise their hands in anger... Bobo. 22:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man glad I'm not the only one who noticed the padding, most of the article isn't actually about him. I'm sure we could do the same to one FC players post-WWI, inserting loads of background about ~240 cricketers being killed in the war, and hence one FCs' appearance being because all the good cricketers had been killed. StickyWicket (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• The John Allen Irish cricketer that's just been deleted at AfD probably had more GNG coverage than this article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

But you can't point out the hypocrisy!!! They already don't like how we 'behave'! StickyWicket (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Dilshan's centuries

What is the point and basis of removing Tillakaratne Dilshan's centuries article and merge it on to the main article???? He has scored 38 international centuries more than even Sir Don Bradman, David Boon or Garfield Sobers. But his article is missing. Nathan Astle has only 27 centuries, and David Gower has only 25 centuries. But they have separate century articles. What is this inequality???? Gihan Jayaweera (talk 11:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Gihan Jayaweera See WP:NLIST and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Tillakaratne Dilshan. Other stuff exists is not a right argument. Störm (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, Gihan Jayaweera, it's nonsense. The main article is too long already and merging the list back in has just made it even worse. Stupid decision but then the world right now seems full of those. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Such standalone lists should only exist if they meet NLIST or the criteria of WP:SPLIT are met, and they very rarely meet NLIST. The main article is far from too long here, but if there were to be a split it would be more appropriate if it were the entire records and achievements section. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue if they are FL, then they meet NLIST, otherwise they wouldn't have made FL? Gihan Jayaweera I quite agree with you. StickyWicket (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, it's getting a bit silly. Next up we should be deleting most band discographies. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

My point is, if we are going to merge the centuries articles, then do it for everyone except those who scored more than 50 centuries. You all are keeping the articles for players with 25 centuries, but deleted the article with 39 centuries. It is definitely inequality. Merge all centuries articles OR keep them as it is. Why they delete only Dilshan's article??? That is my point. Gihan Jayaweera (talk 11:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Can we start a discussion where we can decide the minimum number of centuries so that we can have a list? I think 25 centuries is enough to warrant a seperate list from the main article, perhaps even 20. The same goes for list of centuries of stadiums as well, many of which were deleted randomly without reason. extra999 (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, we are more than just a project that makes articles about player biographies, series scorecards and the odd stadium here and there. This project is being torn back to the bare bones. We should aim to be the widest, but also most consise, resource for cricket in the world. StickyWicket (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

A discussion has been had previously (not too long ago) and is in the archives of this page. There is nothing to prevent such lists from being included within any article where appropriate, hence the mergers. The decision to split them (e.g. into separate list articles) should largely be based on WP:SPLIT; since such lists almost never meet WP:NLIST, they will rarely stand on their own (as can be seen from recent AFDs). And nothing gets deleted randomly or without reason; discussions were had at AFD and consensus determined the results. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

G. Bull

I've managed to find out that Bull came from Andover in Hampshire and was a fast-bowler. Considering he played for the club during a quite tumultuous period of its history (losing many players to active service in the Second Boer War) and finishing poorly for about 6 seasons in the County Championship, then perhaps enough sources can be mustered together in a similar fashion to the unknown baseball guy. Would somebody with British Newspaper Archive access be able to check if there is a first name amongst these reports please? StickyWicket (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Not that I can tell. There isn't any detail of him beyond what you see in the snippets. Interestingly though, he was the sub fielder for Yorkshire (due to late arrivals) and took the catch to dismiss Charles Robson (his Hampshire skipper) in the second over of the match [15]. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Going outside of your search, I found this: "Playing at Newbury on Saturday last for Andover, his native club, George Bull (who is this year for the first time on the County Ground staff at Southampton, and who was tried for Hants against Yorkshire at Hull)...". I've added it to the article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It also seems he didn't play in his second match until the final day, as Hampshire eventually found someone to make up the numbers having played with ten men for the first two days; so wasn't "absent hurt" as indicated by CricketArchive. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. A sub-fielder for players who were late arriving for a home game?! Don't suppose that'd have gone down well with the Yorkshire committee of the time! I wonder if George Bull the cricketer was also George Bull the footballer mentioned in this article as an Andover player in 1905? Were there any indications why Hampshire played with ten men for two days? I'm wondering if Bull had to travel from Hampshire to take part on the third day? StickyWicket (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

No indication as to why (still looking), but it seems the "extremely weak" Hants team began the Essex match with only nine men ("began fielding with two substitutes"). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

In Wisden 1901, he isn't "absent hurt" against Essex, just "absent" for the first innings. He also didn't bowl in Essex's first innings when nine of the 10 other Hampshire players did; in his earlier match against Yorkshire, Hampshire used 10 bowlers, with Bull as first change (though given only six overs). Johnlp (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Think I've exhausted my options for searching BNA. There doesn't seem to be any reason suggested in the papers for Hants failure to start with 11, or why they only had 10 until the final day, but they do heavily criticize the Hampshire committee and note that several leading players were missing (but again, no reason why). Nothing with regards to the football either. BTW, CricketArchive has been updated now. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Could well have been due to the Boer War, their two most famous players from that short period, Robert Poore and Teddy Wynyard, were both military personnel. Wynyard only batted in 5 innings that season and George Raikes another reasonable player from that period, just 6. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Ledger Hill, George Raikes, Leslie Gay, Edward Sprot, and Wynyard are those noted as "prominent absentees", all having played the previous week against Yorkshire. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Poore and Wynyard were certainly involved in military duties at the time, Poore was in South Africa at the time. Wynyard was an instructor at Sandhurst so probably could only play when not on army duty. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Wynyard played for Monmouthshire against Devon ([16]). Gay and Sprot had also played against Sussex immediately prior to the Essex match ([17]). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Makes me think internal politics led to many players perhaps refusing to play in that match, hence the shortage. Thanks for taking a look, I'll try and find out more about him, hoping a football archive might shed some light on if the footballing George Bull is one and the same. StickyWicket (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Quite possibly. If it helps, it seems he was living in Hatherden, near Andover, around that time; and there is also a Robert George Bull (farmer), presumably his father. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's some OR for this chap. He appears to be Robert George Bull (the same name as his father), but is shown as George Bull in the 1881 and 1911 censuses, and as Robert George Bull in the 1891 and 1901 censuses. In a newspaper report of 1905 mentioning both father and son, they are identified as "Robert George Bull" and "George Bull". He was born 12 August 1875 at Lickhill Farm, Calne, Wiltshire: his mother came from Calne and his father was originally from Sutton Benger nearby; an 1875 Wiltshire directory has them as the farmers at Lickhill Farm, Calne, and they were still there in the 1881 census. By 1891, the family had moved to Manston, North Dorset, where Robert senior was a farm bailiff, but by 1901 they were in Andover, where they remained as farmers at Hatherden. In 1901, our man was a "farmer's son"; by 1911 he was a "maltster worker" in Andover; in the 1939 war-time register of non-combatants, he was a bus driver. He died in the fourth quarter of 1940 in the area covered by the Andover registration district. He got married in Andover in 1894 at the age of 19 to a woman, Frances Elizabeth Steele, 13 years his senior: they had one daughter, also named Frances; his wife outlived him by eight years. Email me if you want the various references for all of this. Johnlp (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this Johnlp and the initial digging on the Haterden link Wjemather. It's great that a previously mostly unknown cricketer now has a firm identity, date and place of birth, occupation, and a liking for older women!!! Brilliant stuff! StickyWicket (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library partner suggestion

Hi all. I've suggested here that Cricket Archive be added as a partner. A few upvotes appreciated! StickyWicket (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It was already there, wasn't it? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Half an idea

Instead of all the infighting which is going on here right now, why don't we work on cricket coverage on the Simple English Wikipedia instead. There are currently 37 articles for English cricketers on the Simple English Wikipedia, 24 of whom are/were male Test cricketers. Let's run to the (theoretical) assumption that every first-class cricketer is notable. Bear with me. The first 3000 or so articles will be easy to pick off. We'll just work on Test cricketer articles. There are so many people like myself who are English first-language speakers who struggle with language comprehension. Wham the articles down to a manageable level in terms of bodyspace content. That way, anyone who is interested in cricket who maybe finds it hard to understand screeds worth of text, can just work to more simple, "here-are-the-facts" style of article(s). Of course, the facts will still be there. But presented in a more manageable style, without run-on sentences and/or silly justifications of nonsense chaff that give second-language speakers headaches beyond all knowledge.

Keep in mind the Simple English Wikipedia isn't just for children or second-language speakers. I have many friends with acquired brain injury who struggle with linguistic comprehension. This does not make the project "patronizing" or beneath one's level - nor does it need to be. Bobo. 07:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't like to help out but the only problem is the fact that I would struggle writing in Simple English. HawkAussie (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I was just trying to think of another way of channelling our energies. Bobo. 09:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

We've made too many compromises already; too many retreats. They mass nominate articles and we fall back. They claim to compromise but go back on that compromise and we fall back. The line must be drawn here! Retreating to the Simple English Wiki will only give them more ground. StickyWicket (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a shame that it has become an "us and them" attitude. Us who have been here for long enough to continue to work collaboratively, and those who have popped up out of nowhere thinking they are helping the project by deleting content while refusing to add content.. How much of their concept of "compromise" is "we'll come along after 15 years and pretend we know everything". If they did know everything, they would contribute positively. Bobo. 12:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this is a realistic suggestion. More of a side-project for when we haven't got enough to do around here. Which is not the case at present. Johnlp (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

We're running out of impetus to contribute here. We have a lot to do, it's just that we're being blocked from doing so by those who have no interest in doing so themselves. Bobo. 12:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

My main reason for suggesting this was to point out the fact that, putting information about a cricketer's career within six pages of text is basically creating so much unreadable waffle that the same people would complain anyway...By contributing just the facts, we are presenting this information in a neutral, organized style. There's nothing wrong with cookie-cutter articles. It's just that those who come across them protest because they know they have nothing to add to them. Bobo. 12:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• I know in the past list articles were frowned upon by non-project members when suggested in the past by project members, but it would save a lot of articles being completely deleted now if we had a more complete set of lists for current sides. There's no list currently as far as I can work out for any of the Sri Lankan sides and basically all Sri Lankan cricketers at AfD are being deleted (although I personally believe there's offline sources for them somewhere that aren't being found). Lists can at least allow some statistically history for some of those players who perhaps only played a handful of games to survive in some form. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Lugnuts at ANI

Lugnuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a member of this project known for their factory-style stub creations, has been reported at ANI mainly due to their cricket articles creation using a single database source (cricinfo). Anyone interested to share their viewpoint may do so at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Lugnuts creating poorly sourced cricket stubs. Thanks. Störm (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that ANI is a joke. Especially in light of the FA from the other day. StickyWicket (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure this will help boost relations here (I know you didn't start this one Storm). Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know Lugnuts for "factory-style stub creations", I know them for being a great and positive contributor to Wikipedia with a sense of humour. Perhaps think twice before already trying to bias the discussion Störm. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Like everyone who has been editing here for a long time, we have been co-operating with each other with the aim to produce a "complete" project. What does that say of those who wish to stop this from happening? What are their motives? You have to wonder. Bobo. 12:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Precisely. I mean I criticise JPL and it gets removed as a personal attack. Despite said criticisms having been raised at ANI before. Odd. StickyWicket (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I might annoy people, and my humour isn't always appreciated (or understood) by all, but one thing you can say is that I am here to build an encyclopedia. Too bad this shit-stiring/forum shopping backfired. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Now this!

So here we have an international cricketer who was up here for deletion. Quite clearly a no consensus, overall, though edged by keep: 6 keep, 4 delete. The article was sourced (contrary to what the deletion reason will state), the subject played for a national cricket team, yet gets deleted by the closer citing: "The result was delete. Per SIGCOV. No sources, no article...". Think you'll find that was a no consensus. What a joke. StickyWicket (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review here. StickyWicket (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on this and logging the deletion review. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Prem Bhatia (Gujarat cricketer)

Hi guys, this cricketer has gone to AfD this morning (see here) as he's only played 1 FC match and no coverage, however CricketArchive are stating that he's the same cricketer as Prem Bhatia (Delhi cricketer). This may well be the case as his Gujarat appearance was only a couple of years after his 55 Delhi appearances, and there are no DoB/DoD dates on the Gujarat cricketer, although Cricinfo has separate profiles for them. Personally I think they're the same person and have voted merge, but would someone be willing to do some research to confirm/deny it. Thanks. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems very likely they're the same player. Though it's not infallible, CricketArchive (with its links to the ACS) does tend to be better on past cricket than Cricinfo, which is more of a recent news resource. Johnlp (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

That was my view too, there's significant coverage of him anyway as apparently he was a regular 12th man for India, with lots of coverage of his passing a few years ago. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

South Africa franchise team templates at TfD

Hi. Please see this discussion at TfD now that CSA has abolished their domestic franchise setup. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)